NBA Regular Season & Playoffs 2018-19 Thread

Legion.

Carcharodon wrote: »

Warriors ease past Portland, seemed like a regular season game, Portland had no intensity, Warriors could just do what ever they wanted without getting of 3rd gear
Pretty poor by Portland, You have to get in the Warriors faces and make them work for it like Houston did.

Feared this would be the case which is why I was rooting for Denver to progress. Think Portland are just a worse version of GS. Might nick a game or two if Lillard and CJ catch fire but nothing the Dubs can't deal with pretty easily, KD or not.

Carcharodon

Legion. wrote: »

Feared this would be the case which is why I was rooting for Denver to progress. Think Portland are just a worse version of GS. Might nick a game or two if Lillard and CJ catch fire but nothing the Dubs can't deal with pretty easily, KD or not.

Yep, that’s exactly what they are, I expect a much improved effort on Thursday, they will be hard to beat on the road but by no means impossible, they are excellent when lillard and mc callum hit form

Osmosis Jones

Was a defensive mess from Portland, went in with the exact same defensive schemes as they used against Denver and it just doesn't make sense against the Warriors. It makes sense that they were underprepared, only two days between games and both games on the road, expecting a much better effort in game 2.

Carcharodon

Bucks v Toronto should be a fantastic series, Toronto will feel like they left this behind them

SlickRic

Carcharodon wrote: »

Bucks v Toronto should be a fantastic series, Toronto will feel like they left this behind them

If Giannis isn't dominant, which he wasn't, and you lose, that is a tough one to come back from.

kmart6

Well that was some game. Warriors really dominated the 3rd, thought they had thrown it away midway through the 4th with some really sloppy play to out themselves in a hole, did well to turn it around again. Blazers are going to be kicking themselves for leaving this one behind.

KD ruled out for another week as well so earliest he would be back is a possible game 6 which doesn't seem very likely that there will be one right now.

vetinari

Tbh, the Warriors are still the favorites even if Durant is out for the rest of the playoffs.
Goes again to show the cowardice of his decision to join them.
What does it say about his status as a top tier superstar if his team can win a NBA championship without him?

Carcharodon

vetinari wrote: »

Tbh, the Warriors are still the favorites even if Durant is out for the rest of the playoffs.
Goes again to show the cowardice of his decision to join them.
What does it say about his status as a top tier superstar if his team can win a NBA championship without him?

2016 called and they want their sound bite back

Carcharodon

Just home, fantastic game, dodged a bullet but just had enough in the end, battle between Curry brothers was great

ButtersSuki

Chris Herring on the Zac Lowe pod said earlier this week (recorded before G1 in this series) that GS were 29-4 without KD (but with Curry) since KD joined. That's now 31-4.

Hitch2222

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Chris Herring on the Zac Lowe pod said earlier this week (recorded before G1 in this series) that GS were 29-4 without KD (but with Curry) since KD joined. That's now 31-4.

I tend to think of those as clickbait numbers. In basketball terms it's a relatively small sample.

It doesn't consider the strength of the opposition, the relevance of the games, ie what proportion were rest games opposed to games of note.

You could pluck whatever "stat" to push a narrative that Steph is at his best when KD is off the court and that may be true.
Similarly I suspect KD is at his best when Steph is off the court, it's diminishing returns but GSW are better overall when they're on the court together.

Trailblazers are poorly designed to beat GSW a v.weak defensive backcourt which happens to be defending two of the best shooters ever.

ButtersSuki

Hitch2222 wrote: »

I tend to think of those as clickbait numbers. In basketball terms it's a relatively small sample.

It doesn't consider the strength of the opposition, the relevance of the games, ie what proportion were rest games opposed to games of note.

You could pluck whatever "stat" to push a narrative that Steph is at his best when KD is off the court and that may be true.
Similarly I suspect KD is at his best when Steph is off the court, it's diminishing returns but GSW are better overall when they're on the court together.

Trailblazers are poorly designed to beat GSW a v.weak defensive backcourt which happens to be defending two of the best shooters ever.

35 games is not a small sample size when a season is 82 games. It's practically half a season.

There's very little if any evidence to suggest KD is better when Steph is off the court; and there's lots to say he is not. I can't link right now as I'm off to bed but I've read many articles and listened to lots of commentary on this very subject - you can google it and you'll see/find them for yourself.

I do actually agree with some of your points on Portland though.

Hitch2222

ButtersSuki wrote: »

35 games is not a small sample size when a season is 82 games. It's practically half a season.

There's very little if any evidence to suggest KD is better when Steph is off the court; and there's lots to say he is not. I can't link right now as I'm off to bed but I've read many articles and listened to lots of commentary on this very subject - you can google it and you'll see/find them for yourself.

I do actually agree with some of your points on Portland though.

Not everyone are fanbois and haters as much as you would like to use that a means of strawmanning every opinion that disagrees with you. I don't see people calling you a Simmons fanboi. It immediately sucks the life out of a discussion by going down that route. LBJ, Harden, Steph blah blah

I try to assess players objectively (lots of bias though I'm sure), Steph is playing great the past few games but 35 games over a 280 game sample of their career is small.

Bball is high variance where each team scores more often than most sports. It takes 7 games to reach a consensus on the winner of a round so yes 35 games is a relatively small sample.
You'd likely be told to use a student's t-test as a testing method if this was statistical sample in a domain of similar perceived variance "A small sample is generally regarded as one of size n<30." so given the variance in basketball I tend to think that 35 is small.

Now evidence and opinion are two different things so perhaps plenty of opinion on the topic exists but I tried to check for evidence of this to a degree.

I looked at the 4 player lines including and excluding both with Iggie as 4th player which seems a better representation of the teams cohesiveness with and without one another :

Just using team offensive, defensive & net rating, used by bookies so seems a fine metric

Core 4 without Iggie
111.4 106.5 4.9

Core 4 without Durant
113.5 109.0 4.5

Core 4 without Steph
117.0 108.8 8.2

That suggests similar rotations better with just Durant

Interestingly this is without Klay

119.1 107.3 11.8

Further to my previous point

Steph, Draymond, Iggie and Looney
130.7 102.4 28.3

But

Steph, Draymond, Durant and Looney
130.4 94.0 36.5

That's all playoffs so sample is smaller but regular season lines up with only one of each,

Curry, Klay, Draymond, Looney

118.8 102.2 16.6

Durant, Klay, Draymond, Looney

118.8 99.7 19.1

Surprise surprise, better without Steph but generally best or similar when both are on the court together with the 4 line ups that include both together ranging from 16.6-20 net rating-all bigger samples.

As I said earlier, pick whatever stat you want to push a narrative but Stephs-Durant free- run is a small sample and anyone who thinks the Warriors are truly better when they're not on the court together is nuts.

Hitch2222

Not sure whether they're that much better or the volume of mins played is so significantly less but the Bucks are looking good.
Difficult to know for sure after 2 home games but promising signs and if KD is out beyond 2 more games GSW might struggle to contain Giannis.
GSW hoping that Toronto can make a series of this to prolong things.

LuckyLloyd

Carcharodon wrote: »

Bucks v Toronto should be a fantastic series, Toronto will feel like they left this behind them

It won’t be a fantastic series at all. Bucks match up terribly. GS in 5.

LuckyLloyd

Hey, great post Hitch. Very interesting to see the numbers laid out like that.

Either way, what they’re doing sans Durant is conclusive evidence of how bloody good that trio are.

Hitch2222

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Hey, great post Hitch. Very interesting to see the numbers laid out like that.

Either way, what they’re doing sans Durant is conclusive evidence of how bloody good that trio are.

Unbelievably good, I think when you see GSW this good without Durant & Cousins, it's hard to imagine there has been many teams in NBA history that get close.
Perhaps better players Magic/Kareem/Worthy, Scottie/Jordan, Russell/Cousy, LBJ/Wade/Bosh but you have 6 potential HOF players on a roster playing at a high level, it's insane really.

ButtersSuki

Hitch2222 wrote: »

Unbelievably good, I think when you see GSW this good without Durant & Cousins, it's hard to imagine there has been many teams in NBA history that get close.
Perhaps better players Magic/Kareem/Worthy, Scottie/Jordan, Russell/Cousy, LBJ/Wade/Bosh but you have 6 potential HOF players on a roster playing at a high level, it's insane really.

No Bird/McHale/Parrish mention of course. Or Bird/McHale/Parrish/Johnson/Ainge.....

I'm a big Boogie fan but can't see Boogie making the HOF, even as dubious as some of the HOF selections have been.

ButtersSuki

Hitch2222 wrote: »

Not everyone are fanbois and haters as much as you would like to use that a means of strawmanning every opinion that disagrees with you. I don't see people calling you a Simmons fanboi. It immediately sucks the life out of a discussion by going down that route. LBJ, Harden, Steph blah blah

I try to assess players objectively (lots of bias though I'm sure), Steph is playing great the past few games but 35 games over a 280 game sample of their career is small.

Bball is high variance where each team scores more often than most sports. It takes 7 games to reach a consensus on the winner of a round so yes 35 games is a relatively small sample.
You'd likely be told to use a student's t-test as a testing method if this was statistical sample in a domain of similar perceived variance "A small sample is generally regarded as one of size n<30." so given the variance in basketball I tend to think that 35 is small.

Now evidence and opinion are two different things so perhaps plenty of opinion on the topic exists but I tried to check for evidence of this to a degree.

I looked at the 4 player lines including and excluding both with Iggie as 4th player which seems a better representation of the teams cohesiveness with and without one another :

Just using team offensive, defensive & net rating, used by bookies so seems a fine metric

Core 4 without Iggie
111.4 106.5 4.9

Core 4 without Durant
113.5 109.0 4.5

Core 4 without Steph
117.0 108.8 8.2

That suggests similar rotations better with just Durant

Interestingly this is without Klay

119.1 107.3 11.8

Further to my previous point

Steph, Draymond, Iggie and Looney
130.7 102.4 28.3

But

Steph, Draymond, Durant and Looney
130.4 94.0 36.5

That's all playoffs so sample is smaller but regular season lines up with only one of each,

Curry, Klay, Draymond, Looney

118.8 102.2 16.6

Durant, Klay, Draymond, Looney

118.8 99.7 19.1

Surprise surprise, better without Steph but generally best or similar when both are on the court together with the 4 line ups that include both together ranging from 16.6-20 net rating-all bigger samples.

As I said earlier, pick whatever stat you want to push a narrative but Stephs-Durant free- run is a small sample and anyone who thinks the Warriors are truly better when they're not on the court together is nuts.

Sigh. I honestly think you argue for the sake of it TBH. Can't be bothered getting stats for you as I have better things to do right now, but there are plenty of them out there that - and to be fair as you said yourself - can be used to construct an argument for or against something. BTW, I simply put the stat up there. I thought it was interesting from a top-line perspective, and while I do believe it is statistically significant (unlike you) I'm also not going to use that to construct a thesis whereby I declare they don't need KD.

TO BE 100% CLEAR, I'M NOT SAYING CURRY IS BETTER THAN KD - HE'S NOT. AND I'M NOT SAYING GS ARE BETTER WITHOUT HIM - THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I happen to think KD is currently arguably the best player in basketball - hardly a hot take I know but considering you seem to think I hate everyone I'm just going to state that. I think it's fair to say he's overtaken LeBron at this stage given LeBron's slight (but meaningful) decline.

What I will say is watching the Warriors is more entertaining without KD. The ball movement that comes from a Curry-led, pick and roll + ball movement heavy offence is more aesthetically pleasing (at least to me) than a line up that can become relatively iso-heavy with KD in it.

I'm not a Simmons fanboy btw. He's not even my favourite basketball podcaster. Just because I defended him from an erroneous Joe Rogan comparison does not make me a fanboy. I'm assuming we're talking about Bill and not Ben btw.

I do however think you underrate Curry and overrate other players, players who are inferior to Curry and who contribute less to their teams. I may be wrong but I get the impression you rate Harden as being better for example.

Anyway, have to dash. Once again I've spent way longer on this than intended.

Hitch2222

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Sigh. I honestly think you argue for the sake of it TBH. Can't be bothered getting stats for you as I have better things to do right now, but there are plenty of them out there that - and to be fair as you said yourself - can be used to construct an argument for or against something. BTW, I simply put the stat up there. I thought it was interesting from a top-line perspective, and while I do believe it is statistically significant (unlike you) I'm also not going to use that to construct a thesis whereby I declare they don't need KD.

That's fine if you don't get the stats Butters but if you say "evidence" exists to make a point and I provide contrary evidence to refute your point.
It should be on you to provide it to make a case and at least provide this evidence.
I think I provided a decent premise on why it's a small sample as <30 sample is ubiquitously viewed as a small sample buttressed by why I believe basketball is high variance.
Personally I don't think you've given any reason as to why your belief should be greater than the case I made but each to their own.

TO BE 100% CLEAR, I'M NOT SAYING CURRY IS BETTER THAN KD - HE'S NOT. AND I'M NOT SAYING GS ARE BETTER WITHOUT HIM - THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Nobody claimed that you thought that but you did say this
"There's very little if any evidence to suggest KD is better when Steph is off the court" and thats not true. Theres plenty of evidence as I've shown.

I happen to think KD is currently arguably the best player in basketball - hardly a hot take I know but considering you seem to think I hate everyone I'm just going to state that. I think it's fair to say he's overtaken LeBron at this stage given LeBron's slight (but meaningful) decline.

Again we're back to LBJ even when he's removed from the convo completely but as much as you undeniably do hate him, I largely I agree now, can't hold LBJ top given what Kawhi, KD, Giannis & Harden have done.

What I will say is watching the Warriors is more entertaining without KD. The ball movement that comes from a Curry-led, pick and roll + ball movement heavy offence is more aesthetically pleasing (at least to me) than a line up that can become relatively iso-heavy with KD in it.

That's fine lots of people like to watch Steph run the show but again the quote from above is wrong to a degree. KD is better with Steph off the court than Steph is with KD off the court. Enjoyable or not was never the point.

I'm not a Simmons fanboy btw. He's not even my favourite basketball podcaster. Just because I defended him from an erroneous Joe Rogan comparison does not make me a fanboy. I'm assuming we're talking about Bill and not Ben btw.

Not getting into Joe Rogan with you but given you said he's a troll it's clear you don't know what you're talking about tbh. It a complimentary comparison if anything, listeners of both would generally confirm as much.

Sorry Butters it doesn't work like that, you can't just call anyone who disagrees with you a hater/fanboi(like you do all the time) and then get pissy when you're called a fanboi. It feels like a fake news situation here but you give off fanboi tendencies of Simmons irrespective of if he's your fav or not.

I do however think you underrate Curry and overrate other players, players who are inferior to Curry and who contribute less to their teams. I may be wrong but I get the impression you rate Harden as being better for example.

Yeah zero evidence of that.

I rate Curry incredibly highly, I quoted all the previous references to that before. Pretty sure I never heaped similar praise on Harden, please show me where I've given Harden more praise than Curry?

I think Harden exploits a niche and probably give him more praise than most but I admire someone who capitalises so we'll on an edge. Curry is not as good in the playoffs as the regular -just like Harden- so you're wrong on that.

Anyway, have to dash. Once again I've spent way longer on this than intended.

It would be nice if you took the time to actually rebuff the questions posed above instead of going off on a tangent.

ButtersSuki wrote: »

No Bird/McHale/Parrish mention of course. Or Bird/McHale/Parrish/Johnson/Ainge.....

I'm a big Boogie fan but can't see Boogie making the HOF, even as dubious as some of the HOF selections have been.

Why are you saying of course to my point? It's hardly a Celtics thing given I mentioned Russell/Cousy so perhaps you can enlighten me on what imaginary bias I have?

On a side note, you might think I argue just to argue but I don't.
You post at a high frequency so inevitably more posts will arise which I disagree with.
Additionally when controlling for frequency, I do think you conjecture alot of shaky ideas and I like to challenge them because you know basketball.
However to be honest in the past while you simply shout fanboi/hater too often when challenged on a point so I'll keep the responses to a minimum moving forward.

kmart6

Ah lads take it to PM or something, this just seems to be dragging on and on.

Hitch2222

kmart6 wrote: »

Ah lads take it to PM or something, this just seems to be dragging on and on.

Obviously not bothered taking a basketball discussion to pm. It's pretty benign stuff even at its most incendiary.

That said I'm happy enough refraining from responding as I said in the final line of my previous post.

Carcharodon

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It won’t be a fantastic series at all. Bucks match up terribly. GS in 5.

You could be right but I sill think kawhi will make it interesting, he is so god damn good, haven’t seen him much this year but a joy to watch, will be hard to beat Toronto at home but I agree Bucks are poised to win this handy

ButtersSuki

Hitch2222 wrote: »

Why are you saying of course to my point? It's hardly a Celtics thing given I mentioned Russell/Cousy so perhaps you can enlighten me on what imaginary bias I have?

I'm saying of course because not to mention Bird, the Cetics triumverate at that time, or their 5 is a pretty big commission. Never said it's a Celtics thing (believe it or not I do actually know who Russell and Cousy are), just consider that a huge omission from your list.

On a side note, you might think I argue just to argue but I don't.
You post at a high frequency so inevitably more posts will arise which I disagree with.
And like I said before that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.

Additionally when controlling for frequency, I do think you conjecture alot of shaky ideas and I like to challenge them because you know basketball. Obviously I disagree. For the record, I disagree with an awful lot of what you say.
However to be honest in the past while you simply shout fanboi/hater too often when challenged on a point so I'll keep the responses to a minimum moving forward.
Well considering this is the forum where it was said not too long ago that John Wall was better than Steph Curry (from memory it was either before his first MVP or during that actual season), and that we have constant cries that a certain player not named Michael Jordan is the GOAT I really wonder how much some people know about the game at all at times tbh. We also had some genius from Cork a few years back stating there'd be an NBA player from Cork within a few years - that was a particular highlight.

And once again any comment on LBJ from me is construed as some grievous attack on him and warrants a ridiculous over-reaction and defence again. Really?

I said:
I happen to think KD is currently arguably the best player in basketball - hardly a hot take I know but considering you seem to think I hate everyone I'm just going to state that. I think it's fair to say he's overtaken LeBron at this stage given LeBron's slight (but meaningful) decline.

You replied with:
Again we're back to LBJ even when he's removed from the convo completely but as much as you undeniably do hate him, I largely I agree now, can't hold LBJ top given what Kawhi, KD, Giannis & Harden have done.

In that quote it's clearly implied that he's still a super elite player, at worst Top 5 active and I'm once again acceding to the fact that he was the very best player on the planet until this year. I said he's had a slight decline (which you even seem to accept), not that he's garbage - and you somehow turn that into hate? For the millionth time - I don't hate LeBron. I don't however feel that he's as perfect or as good as some on here think (and I'm saying that even acceding he was the very best individual player) - yes, his fanboys who excuse everything bad/negative he does and overly praise anything good he does - and I'm solely talking about on court here activities here. And it's not just on here, it's in the wider US media too, at times.

ButtersSuki

On a completely different note, I really wish the refs would call out Giannis for his ridiculous travels, particularly in the open court. The 2nd Milwaukee basket from Game 1 was a particularly obvious example (see Play 2 in the clip below). I've been consistent in saying travelling at this level is a real pet peeve and I wish they'd start to call it - and I don't care who the player is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_q7qbvERzg

It really detracts from watching a game IMO. It also could be a game changing/game deciding play to let these just go like they do. What if that game was decided by a point? Btw, that's not the only one he had in the Game. NOT picking on Giannis btw, I'm a massive fan of his game - this is a league-wide criticism.

Hitch2222

Obviously no appetite amongst the rest of the posters for us continuing Butters plus on a personal level in light of the questions I asked around my rating of Harden/Steph and the evidence you claimed existed not being answered once again I'm happy to let that conversation die.

ButtersSuki wrote: »

"I really wonder how much some people know about the game at all at times tbh".

Just to say Butters, this is not a particularly endearing attitude to have when referring to posters on a forum you frequent but I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say that we're eternally grateful that even in light of our shortcomings you're willing to grace us with your knowledge.

Carcharodon

What a game from day day, probably the best game I’ve ever seen him play, he was just spectacular on both ends of the floor

Hitch2222

Carcharodon wrote: »

What a game from day day, probably the best game I’ve ever seen him play, he was just spectacular on both ends of the floor

No idea what Portland should do in the off season, given the contracts and injury to Nurkic, it may be best to stand pat. Unless Zach Collins makes a huge leap over the summer, this team has just peaked at WCF imo.

This roster is just not auspicious for playoff basketball. I suspect most people envisaged this to a degree but GSW even better than expected without KD but Portland really are designed to get roasted by GSW. A Lillard/McCollum backcourt and Kanter frontcourt is just too weak defensively.

I suspect this GSW series performance tells us little about how a KD-less GSW will fare against the Bucks but Steph & co have done little wrong.

ButtersSuki

Hitch2222 wrote: »

Obviously no appetite amongst the rest of the posters for us continuing Butters plus on a personal level in light of the questions I asked around my rating of Harden/Steph and the evidence you claimed existed not being answered once again I'm happy to let that conversation die.


Just to say Butters, this is not a particularly endearing attitude to have when referring to posters on a forum you frequent but I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say that we're eternally grateful that even in light of our shortcomings you're willing to grace us with your knowledge.

Posted I suspect without any understanding of the irony of that statement.

Hitch2222

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Posted I suspect without any understanding of the irony of that statement.

Well given i answered any question non-LBJ related -because who wants to hear that again-, I assume you must think some irony exists in my attitude towards others.

I would ask you to highlight where I've ever said anything close to the sanctimony you've just displayed in the comment I quoted but I know it doesn't exist plus you rarely take the time to provide evidence to back up any statement you utter so I'll leave you ruminate on whatever new false conjecture you've fabricated this time.