Game #3 LAC (2-0) vs Sac (1-1)

[Clemenza]

When did anyone say we are cruising to 60 wins easily? How many people even predicted 60 wins?

My father's King's had Webber and Divac and were a Western powerhouse

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1350848

I don't see the cruising to 60 wins easily there...

Ok I shouldn't have used the word "easily" in my post. That's my mistake but don't act like '60 wins' wasn't mentioned more than a few times in that thread.

[og15]

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1350848

I don't see the cruising to 60 wins easily there...

Ok I shouldn't have used the word "easily" in my post. That's my mistake but don't act like '60 wins' wasn't mentioned more than a few times in that thread.

Btw, I wasn't saying no one predicted 60 wins, I'm saying no one said it would just be an easy walk in the park to 60 wins, and it wasn't some situation where 90% of the people were predicting 60 wins. Being able to win 60 or having that expectation has nothing to do with it being easy or just cruising to that.

Yea, people definitely predicted it, no disagreement there, but the team has 19 more losses available before not being able to get 60 wins

In addition, we're 3 games in. If we were 3-0 and blew out all those teams and looked great, it wouldn't mean we were going to cruise to 60 wins either, because it is 3 games.

[og15]

For example, GS is 3-0. Their offense is scoring less pts/possession than the Clippers because they are turning it over like crazy. They are also shooting a weak 33% 3PT as a team and Curry is shooting 27% 3PT. Their defense though is giving up 89.9 pts/100, 1st in the league.

So just like we don't expect Curry to shoot 27% 3PT for the season, we also can't expect Redick to shoot 17.4% 3PT on the season, but we also don't expect GS to hold opponents to a historic 89.9 Ortg which is ridiculous.

Let's just look at it like this, if Redick played to about his career averages, only Redick, everyone else is still bad, the team would have scored:

vs SAC, 102 pts (+10) (4 pt win)
vs LAL, 121 pts (+3) (10 pt win)
vs OKC, 101 pts (+8) (11 pt win)

This is if Redick averaged about 43-44% FG and 39-40% 3PT through the first 3 games, he would have scored 21 more pts. He's currently shooting 24.2% FG and 16.7% 3PT. Now, unless we think he's going to shoot this horribly for the whole season, with the exact same offense, the team should average at least 5+ pts/game just from Redick shooting better, and more likely about 7+ ppg.

This is why I'm saying we can't use 3 games to determine anything, there's just some crazy outliers in these 3 games that won't hold for a season.

You can't expect Redick to shoot that poorly for a season, you can't expect the team to shoot historically poor 41% FG and 29.8% 3PT for the season, even last years Sixers (43.2% FG / 31.2% 3PT) were better than that. So even with all the things that suck and might still not be great, the teams percentages move to more normal percentages, and they'll still be a top offense.

[Neddy]

Blake was popping too much on the pick and roll though, it would have been nice if he was diving to the basket more.

i've been saying this for some time now, but Blake cannot be the superstar that carries us to the championship if he thinks he is gonna be the next durant. He needs to get physical and dirty. He needs to use his shots to create more inside, not the other way around. everyone compares him to mailman, but i see young Barkley in Blake. I sure hope he can grasp some of the defensive abilities of the round mound of rebound.

I don't mind him popping, just not too much, and I don't even want him to roll for scoring persay. I like when he rolls and it sucks defenders in and it allows him to find open shooters or to throw the lob to DJ.

I'm not sure Barkley is the one he wants to imitate on defense. Barkley is an admittedly lazy defender though he had the length and athletic ability to get blocks and steals.

latter part of his career Sir Charles was outsized and often out jumped.
the younger Barkley was lazy at times, and i admit it.

but the motivated young Barkley was something. I still remember one particular game back somewhere around 1990? before magic retired due to being positive to HIV, the Flakers were visiting the old Spectrum in Phili. the game got tight and you could see Charles beaming at the chance to knock down the great Magic and his Lakers as the 76ers were miserable back then. it was just Charles and (H/D)+awkins combo at guards. in the last minute of the game, the 6ers comes back to go up by one, when Charles became absolutely mad and guarded magic full court, one on one. Magic couldn't do jack. after a couple of missed offensive positions with CHarles's heckling clearly bothering him, the great magic, on the last play, he barely brings the ball past the half court but gets locked up by Charles and didn't even get a shot off or attempt a pass.

Yes Charles always had problems with work ethic, which is something Blake thankfully does not have. but Charles had the set of skills and natural talent that at least to me, is the closest thing to Blake as a past comparison.

BTW I do realize this is going to sound antidotal and just another the usual garden variety stories of "back in my day, sonny..." crap but I remember the Charles who flied through the air, hitting his bald head on the bottom of the backboard while dunking, blocking shots of a seven footer by leaping like a frog and being bull strong in the low post who at times struggled with jumpers but worked at it as his career progressed. don't you think this sounds pretty familiar?


and BTW i agree with your first assessment. Blake should utilize his playmaking ability more.

[og15]

Agreed, Charles was a freak athlete, long, strong, mobile, and no doubt he could make highlight defensive plays, and when focused he could defend well, but just saying more of an overall level, he himself admits that he didn't really concentrate too much on the defensive end of things.

Of course Blake doesn't even have the length of even a guy like Barkley who has freakishly long arms in addition to his athletic ability

[Neddy]

Of course Blake doesn't even have the length of even a guy like Barkley who has freakishly long arms in addition to his athletic ability

true.

there was a topic of discussion about people looking like T rex with short arms during lunch, and one of my hygienists showed me a picture of a singer named Cee Lo whom i have never seen before. his arms sadly, reminded immediately of blake and his shortcomings.....

[og15]

Of course Blake doesn't even have the length of even a guy like Barkley who has freakishly long arms in addition to his athletic ability

true.

there was a topic of discussion about people looking like T rex with short arms during lunch, and one of my hygienists showed me a picture of a singer named Cee Lo whom i have never seen before. his arms sadly, reminded immediately of blake and his shortcomings.....

that's so sad

[LACtdom]

In all my years of watching playoff basketball, I've never ever said, "wow, that team just lost a 7 game series because shots weren't falling"

Are you trolling or you've seriously never seen a team shoot a low FG% in a playoff game and go on to lose the series? Who knows, maybe one day scientists will say FGM is correlated to points on the score board!

from that....you went on to make a specific scenario about losing a game by missing shots and then losing the series.

nobody loses a 7 game series because shots aren't falling.
a game...sure....a series...no.
so you'd never hear me panicking or whining about that in the playoffs.

Ha! So if a team lost game 7 because of poor shooting you still wouldn't say it affected the series?.

[Quake Griffin]

Are you trolling or you've seriously never seen a team shoot a low FG% in a playoff game and go on to lose the series? Who knows, maybe one day scientists will say FGM is correlated to points on the score board!

from that....you went on to make a specific scenario about losing a game by missing shots and then losing the series.

nobody loses a 7 game series because shots aren't falling.
a game...sure....a series...no.
so you'd never hear me panicking or whining about that in the playoffs.

Ha! So if a team lost game 7 because of poor shooting you still wouldn't say it affected the series?.

Keep in mind we're talking about "shots not falling".

if you shoot poorly because another team defends you well, that's not the same thing.
the chance that a team gets the looks they want over a 7 game series and loses because they can't make them is very slim.

1) they're professionals.
2) they're the shots they want.

but if I ever saw it happen....which i never have...nor will I ever because this is the NBA and not the NCAA tournament....i would say it happened.

[LACtdom]

from that....you went on to make a specific scenario about losing a game by missing shots and then losing the series.

nobody loses a 7 game series because shots aren't falling.
a game...sure....a series...no.
so you'd never hear me panicking or whining about that in the playoffs.

Ha! So if a team lost game 7 because of poor shooting you still wouldn't say it affected the series?.

Keep in mind we're talking about "shots not falling".

if you shoot poorly because another team defends you well, that's not the same thing.
the chance that a team gets the looks they want over a 7 game series and loses because they can't make them is very slim.

1) they're professionals.
2) they're the shots they want.

but if I ever saw it happen....which i never have...nor will I ever because this is the NBA and not the NCAA tournament....i would say it happened.

I agree. I think I got confused with what we were talking about. my original point was simply: if something isn't working during the first 3 quarters then maybe try something different, whether it was because shots aren't falling or something else.