|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 12, 2023 17:04:15 GMT
The Athletic asks if this could be the start of a Denver dynasty: While they've comfortably looked the best team this postseason, I'd almost like to see them get out of some tough situations this time next year. Backs against the wall, facing adversity, down 2-1 or 3-2 before battling back, that type of thing. I get the feeling that history will sneer on their run this year; unimpressive Timberwolves, chemistry-less Suns, old and banged-up Lakers, then an #8 seed in the Finals (granted, not a typical #8 seed). It's the kind of thing that'll count against them during those inevitable "2023 Broncos vs [insert great team of the past]: who wins?" debates. I doubt that's a debate anyone will be having. But yeah, this happens every year in every sport. A team wins a title, and the media immediately start talking dynasty. They usually at least wait for them to actually win, though.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Jun 12, 2023 17:14:27 GMT
The Athletic asks if this could be the start of a Denver dynasty: While they've comfortably looked the best team this postseason, I'd almost like to see them get out of some tough situations this time next year. Backs against the wall, facing adversity, down 2-1 or 3-2 before battling back, that type of thing. I get the feeling that history will sneer on their run this year; unimpressive Timberwolves, chemistry-less Suns, old and banged-up Lakers, then an #8 seed in the Finals (granted, not a typical #8 seed). It's the kind of thing that'll count against them during those inevitable "2023 Broncos vs [insert great team of the past]: who wins?" debates. I doubt that's a debate anyone will be having. But yeah, this happens every year in every sport. A team wins a title, and the media immediately start talking dynasty. They usually at least wait for them to actually win, though. Haha, whoops. I have football on the brain; this June basketball fandom of mine is a sham.
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on Jun 12, 2023 17:58:45 GMT
The worst things about NBA: 1) the ridiculous number of time outs you get every half 2) taking two fucking games off between games when you change venue in the finals 3) teams that shoot endless three pointers I suppose the baseline 3 is pretty and there's not much space between out-of-bounds and toe on the line, but I'm all for moving the line back. Edit: At 22 feet, that's a whole 3 feet at the baseline. Heck, even Bob Lanier could set up there. Move it to 2 1.2. The 2 days off is fine with me. I appreciate the time spent on practice and adjustment. Miami to Dnver is a bit of a trek. We just have to live with all the media-day crap. Time-outs = ad revenue. Maybe replace one with one more challenge if the first is successful. A couple of weeks ago, Jeff Van Gundy proposed that all shooting fouls should just be awarded points instead of foul shots until the final five minutes of the game. Apparently, like baseball, there has been talk about speeding up games. But cutting the number of time outs per half to three per team would also help. If a game with twenty times more strategy in it (football) can survive on three time outs per half, the NBA can as well.
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Jun 12, 2023 18:12:25 GMT
I suppose the baseline 3 is pretty and there's not much space between out-of-bounds and toe on the line, but I'm all for moving the line back. Edit: At 22 feet, that's a whole 3 feet at the baseline. Heck, even Bob Lanier could set up there. Move it to 2 1.2. The 2 days off is fine with me. I appreciate the time spent on practice and adjustment. Miami to Dnver is a bit of a trek. We just have to live with all the media-day crap. Time-outs = ad revenue. Maybe replace one with one more challenge if the first is successful. A couple of weeks ago, Jeff Van Gundy proposed that all shooting fouls should just be awarded points instead of foul shots until the final five minutes of the game. Apparently, like baseball, there has been talk about speeding up games. But cutting the number of time outs per half to three per team would also help. If a game with twenty times more strategy in it (football) can survive on three time outs per half, the NBA can as well. The Big 3 has players shoot 1 free throw for all the points. Get fouled on a 3, shoot 1 free throw worth 3 points. It actually works.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Jun 12, 2023 18:14:08 GMT
Just award championships to the team that's talked about the most. Actually winning playoff games is too hard.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 12, 2023 18:17:11 GMT
I suppose the baseline 3 is pretty and there's not much space between out-of-bounds and toe on the line, but I'm all for moving the line back. Edit: At 22 feet, that's a whole 3 feet at the baseline. Heck, even Bob Lanier could set up there. Move it to 2 1.2. The 2 days off is fine with me. I appreciate the time spent on practice and adjustment. Miami to Dnver is a bit of a trek. We just have to live with all the media-day crap. Time-outs = ad revenue. Maybe replace one with one more challenge if the first is successful. A couple of weeks ago, Jeff Van Gundy proposed that all shooting fouls should just be awarded points instead of foul shots until the final five minutes of the game. Apparently, like baseball, there has been talk about speeding up games. But cutting the number of time outs per half to three per team would also help. If a game with twenty times more strategy in it (football) can survive on three time outs per half, the NBA can as well. It makes sense on the surface, as possessions/points are hardly at a premium in basketball the way they are in football. Though it's the fluid nature of the game that necessitates more timeouts. You rarely need to take a panic timeout in football because the game got out of hand in a two minute span. What they need to do to expedite the end of games is actually call intentional fouls. An 11 point game with 37 seconds left, the defensive player wraps up the guy with the ball while making no play on the ball. It's an intentional foul. The offense gets two FTs and maintains possession of the ball. There's no benefit to fouling there. The game is over after two of those, the last 30 seconds of a game would no longer take 20 minutes to resolve itself.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Jun 12, 2023 18:21:25 GMT
The Athletic asks if this could be the start of a Denver dynasty: While they've comfortably looked the best team this postseason, I'd almost like to see them get out of some tough situations this time next year. Backs against the wall, facing adversity, down 2-1 or 3-2 before battling back, that type of thing. I get the feeling that history will sneer on their run this year; unimpressive Timberwolves, chemistry-less Suns, old and banged-up Lakers, then an #8 seed in the Finals (granted, not a typical #8 seed). It's the kind of thing that'll count against them during those inevitable "2023 Broncos vs [insert great team of the past]: who wins?" debates. But yeah, this happens every year in every sport. A team wins a title, and the media immediately start talking dynasty. They usually at least wait for them to actually win, though. I actually saw this question posed recently: "Who'd win between the 2023 Nuggets and 2000-2002 era Lakers?" Yeah, I'll take the team that won three straight titles and whose superstars also won rings without each other over the team that's up 3-1 in a Finals.
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Jun 12, 2023 19:42:41 GMT
But yeah, this happens every year in every sport. A team wins a title, and the media immediately start talking dynasty. They usually at least wait for them to actually win, though. I actually saw this question posed recently: "Who'd win between the 2023 Nuggets and 2000-2002 era Lakers?" Yeah, I'll take the team that won three straight titles and whose superstars also won rings without each other over the team that's up 3-1 in a Finals. You're dealing with the evolution of the game, though. Shaq has said he couldn't guard Jokic, and Jokic is a big man who makes 3s and has a much higher FT percentage than big men back then.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 12, 2023 19:56:34 GMT
I actually saw this question posed recently: "Who'd win between the 2023 Nuggets and 2000-2002 era Lakers?" Yeah, I'll take the team that won three straight titles and whose superstars also won rings without each other over the team that's up 3-1 in a Finals. You're dealing with the evolution of the game, though. Shaq has said he couldn't guard Jokic, and Jokic is a big man who makes 3s and has a much higher FT percentage than big men back then. Who on Denver is stopping Kobe? Maybe Shaq couldn't guard Jokic, but how fast does Jokic foul out trying to guard Shaq? 2001 Lakers had several players shoot over 37% from three, Horry 34%. (Unless the game is on the line, then that dude is making it every time.) It might come down to the old 'Which rules are we using' argument. It's an intriguing matchup to say the least, but for now I'll give the edge to the guys that proved it back to back to back.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Jun 12, 2023 20:09:45 GMT
I actually saw this question posed recently: "Who'd win between the 2023 Nuggets and 2000-2002 era Lakers?" Yeah, I'll take the team that won three straight titles and whose superstars also won rings without each other over the team that's up 3-1 in a Finals. You're dealing with the evolution of the game, though. Shaq has said he couldn't guard Jokic, and Jokic is a big man who makes 3s and has a much higher FT percentage than big men back then. The series would come down to more than Jokic vs Shaq. Ultimately, I’d trust those Lakers to stop the Nuggets more often than I’d trust the Nuggets to stop those Lakers. Tonight is likely Denver’s coronation but they’re still a long way off being compared to three-peat dynasties.
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Jun 12, 2023 20:13:56 GMT
You're dealing with the evolution of the game, though. Shaq has said he couldn't guard Jokic, and Jokic is a big man who makes 3s and has a much higher FT percentage than big men back then. The series would come down to more than Jokic vs Shaq. Ultimately, I’d trust those Lakers to stop the Nuggets more often than I’d trust the Nuggets to stop those Lakers. Tonight is likely Denver’s coronation but they’re still a long way off being compared to three-peat dynasties. Hand-checking was made illegal in 2004, so there's that.
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Jun 12, 2023 21:48:08 GMT
Fred van Free Agent
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 12, 2023 23:15:48 GMT
You're dealing with the evolution of the game, though. Shaq has said he couldn't guard Jokic, and Jokic is a big man who makes 3s and has a much higher FT percentage than big men back then. The series would come down to more than Jokic vs Shaq. Ultimately, I’d trust those Lakers to stop the Nuggets more often than I’d trust the Nuggets to stop those Lakers. Tonight is likely Denver’s coronation but they’re still a long way off being compared to three-peat dynasties. The 2002 Nets were heavy on ball movement and perimeter shooting, not unlike today's NBA. They had a future HOFer and all-time great passer running the offense in Jason Kidd, not unlike Jokic's ability to get others involved. The Lakers swept them in the Finals.
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Jun 13, 2023 11:10:55 GMT
Playoff games without a title
Karl Malone 193 John Stockton 182 Al Horford 167 Sam Perkins 167 James Harden 160 Jason Kidd 158 Chris Paul 149 Kyle Korver 145 Reggie Miller 144 Charles Oakley 144 George Hill 144 Derrick McKey 143 Clifford Robinson 141 Jeff Hornacek 140 Patrick Ewing 139 Dale Davis 137
Charles Barkley is way way down the list with 123.
|
|
|
Post by Winston Wolfe on Jun 13, 2023 13:20:10 GMT
Playoff games without a title Karl Malone 193 John Stockton 182 Al Horford 167 Sam Perkins 167 James Harden 160 Jason Kidd 158 Chris Paul 149 Kyle Korver 145 Reggie Miller 144 Charles Oakley 144 Derrick McKey 143 Clifford Robinson 141 Jeff Hornacek 140 Patrick Ewing 139 Dale Davis 137 Charles Barkley is way way down the list with 123. George Hill 144 Horford’s probably done. Harden will pass him up, Paul is probably done soon and won’t get that far.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 13, 2023 13:38:45 GMT
Playoff games without a title Karl Malone 193 John Stockton 182 Al Horford 167 Sam Perkins 167 James Harden 160 Jason Kidd 158 Chris Paul 149 Kyle Korver 145 Reggie Miller 144 Charles Oakley 144 Derrick McKey 143 Clifford Robinson 141 Jeff Hornacek 140 Patrick Ewing 139 Dale Davis 137 Charles Barkley is way way down the list with 123. George Hill 144 Jaylen Brown 105 Jayson Tatum 98 They might surpass Malone if the Celtics give them both the Supermax.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Jun 13, 2023 15:26:32 GMT
Wemby down 0-2 in the French Finals. Spurs shouldn't draft this bum!
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Jun 13, 2023 15:37:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 13, 2023 15:51:47 GMT
This all could've been avoided if more of the crowd was armed.
|
|
|
Post by mtbg on Jun 13, 2023 16:24:20 GMT
The series would come down to more than Jokic vs Shaq. Ultimately, I’d trust those Lakers to stop the Nuggets more often than I’d trust the Nuggets to stop those Lakers. Tonight is likely Denver’s coronation but they’re still a long way off being compared to three-peat dynasties. The 2002 Nets were heavy on ball movement and perimeter shooting, not unlike today's NBA. They had a future HOFer and all-time great passer running the offense in Jason Kidd, not unlike Jokic's ability to get others involved. The Lakers swept them in the Finals. Been to a lot of Nets games in my life. Loved the Kenny Anderson, Derrick Coleman, & Drazen Petrovic teams. Those Kidd-lead Nets team were a fun team to watch. Ball movement was unreal. They simply had no answer for Shaq. He was just bigger, faster, stronger.
|
|