And it begins: Beal will not play because of back problems

MagicMamba88 · Post #61 » by **MagicMamba88** » Tue Oct 24, 2023 10:57 pm

dockingsched wrote:If it’s anything like last year when stars were out, Beal should be feeling better than ever just in time for a matchup against the lakers.

MavsDirk41 · Post #62 » by **MavsDirk41** » Tue Oct 24, 2023 11:02 pm

And why did Phoenix trade for this guy?

One Last Shot · Post #63 » by **One Last Shot** » Tue Oct 24, 2023 11:05 pm

MavsDirk41 wrote:And why did Phoenix trade for this guy?

Maybe the same reason why the Mavs traded for Kyrie.

JustBuzzin · Post #64 » by **JustBuzzin** » Tue Oct 24, 2023 11:05 pm

MavsDirk41 wrote:And why did Phoenix trade for this guy?

You can take Beal out of Washington, but you can't take the Washington out of Beal. 8-)

MavsDirk41 · Post #65 » by **MavsDirk41** » Tue Oct 24, 2023 11:06 pm

One Last Shot wrote:
MavsDirk41 wrote:And why did Phoenix trade for this guy?

Maybe the same reason why the Mavs traded for Kyrie.

And look how that turned out for the Mavs last year

MavsDirk41 · Post #66 » by **MavsDirk41** » Tue Oct 24, 2023 11:07 pm

JustBuzzin wrote:
MavsDirk41 wrote:And why did Phoenix trade for this guy?

You can take Beal out of Washington, but you can't take the Washington out of Beal.

Lol very true :roll:

One Last Shot · Post #67 » by **One Last Shot** » Tue Oct 24, 2023 11:14 pm

MavsDirk41 wrote:
One Last Shot wrote:
MavsDirk41 wrote:And why did Phoenix trade for this guy?

Maybe the same reason why the Mavs traded for Kyrie.

And look how that turned out for the Mavs last year

Luka got injured that's why they miss the playoffs, not because of Kyrie trade. They have 28-16 record(52-win pace) with healthy Luka until this happened.

Read on Twitter

Post #68 » by **KingDavid** » Tue Oct 24, 2023 11:41 pm

CodeBreaker wrote:Glad we didn't get him

I wanted him, but while keeping Herro which is completely unrealistic of me and unfair to the Wiz.

CS707 · Post #69 » by **CS707** » Tue Oct 24, 2023 11:41 pm

Clyde Frazier wrote:#PaperChamps until proven otherwise

Wouldn't that imply that they at least won something? Paper tigers maybe.

MavsDirk41 · Post #70 » by **MavsDirk41** » Wed Oct 25, 2023 12:03 am

One Last Shot wrote:
MavsDirk41 wrote:
One Last Shot wrote:
Maybe the same reason why the Mavs traded for Kyrie.

And look how that turned out for the Mavs last year

Luka got injured that's why they miss the playoffs, not because of Kyrie trade. They have 28-16 record(52-win pace) with healthy Luka until this happened.

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

They missed DFS big time and Luka and Kyrie didnt mesh. Maybe with a full training camp they will have more cohesion but it wasnt great last year when they were together on the court. I think Irving is a great player, still an allstar of course. Just not sure him and Luka are a great match and they have to hope Josh Green has his best season and they get something out of Omax this year and he is playing rotational minutes. They need his size, length, and defense.

Edrees · Post #71 » by **Edrees** » Wed Oct 25, 2023 1:11 am

tamaraw08 wrote:
flranger wrote:
whatisacenter wrote:so this opener may be without Draymond, Brad and Devin....

New rules working out just as expected

I just don't think the league can really judge if a player is legitimately in pain or not. Even MRI results can reveal inconclusive but that doesn't mean a person is not really in pain or he is just faking it.
That is why I am proposing that the league will just make the win/loss record matter so much. The higher seed get as many as 5 home games while the lower seed get 2 in a 7 game series.

All the NBA's actions the last years have devalued the importance of winning in the regular season, such as adding a play in. They aren't going to move in the other direction. I would approve of that though, except for the Finals.

Post #72 » by **Texas Chuck** » Wed Oct 25, 2023 1:51 pm

Jadoogar wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:I mean I don't have any love lost for the Suns....

But this is why teams chase a 3rd star. Because it means even when dealing with injuries they still have a star available. And you can win with one star.

you could argue you can achieve the same thing with depth vs a 3rd star

You could. I wouldn't. It's really hard to win games with just players 4-10 on your roster. Its the top end guys that really drive winning. There are some exceptions of course. Memphis has been successful without their 2 stars in recent years, but its just a much harder way to win particularly on the offensive end.

But if you always have one star on the court, you have a chance. Role players can still do role player things, but you have someone who warps defenses for you.

Take the Mavs title year. 60+ win pace with Dirk, dominant playoff run, role players were all awesome. But Dirk missed 10 games and that team couldn't score at all. All that glorious veteran depth did nothing for them without the guy who it made it go. If they had a 2nd star though they could have weathered that better.

Jadoogar · Post #73 » by **Jadoogar** » Wed Oct 25, 2023 1:58 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
Jadoogar wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:I mean I don't have any love lost for the Suns....

But this is why teams chase a 3rd star. Because it means even when dealing with injuries they still have a star available. And you can win with one star.

you could argue you can achieve the same thing with depth vs a 3rd star

You could. I wouldn't. It's really hard to win games with just players 4-10 on your roster. Its the top end guys that really drive winning. There are some exceptions of course. Memphis has been successful without their 2 stars in recent years, but its just a much harder way to win particularly on the offensive end.

But if you always have one star on the court, you have a chance. Role players can still do role player things, but you have someone who warps defenses for you.

Take the Mavs title year. 60+ win pace with Dirk, dominant playoff run, role players were all awesome. But Dirk missed 10 games and that team couldn't score at all. All that glorious veteran depth did nothing for them without the guy who it made it go. If they had a 2nd star though they could have weathered that better.

oh you definitely need 2 stars, especially for the playoffs but i don't think you need 3. Unless you have the Heatles or the Warriors big three, you much better off spreading the contract of the third star for depth that fits around the main stars. it's what the Lakers found out last year.

I think it's going to show with the Suns as well. They had some stretches with Gleague rosters out there last night.

Trey24 · Post #74 » by **Trey24** » Wed Oct 25, 2023 3:40 pm

Beal is not anywhere near as good as everyone thinks he is. But as 3rd option he will be good if he plays

Post #75 » by **og15** » Wed Oct 25, 2023 5:36 pm

Edrees wrote:
tamaraw08 wrote:
flranger wrote:
New rules working out just as expected

I just don't think the league can really judge if a player is legitimately in pain or not. Even MRI results can reveal inconclusive but that doesn't mean a person is not really in pain or he is just faking it.
That is why I am proposing that the league will just make the win/loss record matter so much. The higher seed get as many as 5 home games while the lower seed get 2 in a 7 game series.

All the NBA's actions the last years have devalued the importance of winning in the regular season, such as adding a play in. They aren't going to move in the other direction. I would approve of that though, except for the Finals.

Well, the real issue is good luck with owners agreeing that the other team gets all the ticket sales and all the money that will be generated from possibly having an additional playoff game, not to mention the winning disadvantage.

Here's the thing about the play in and devaluing the regular season. Most teams in the beginning of the season are trying to win, with the exception of a few that come into the season preparing to lose, or accepting that outcome. At a certain point, some teams get out of contention for anything and just join the develop players / get better draft spot train.

The play in gives some teams who would join this train an incentive to keep winning as much as possible for the possibility of getting into the top 10 and possibly being in the playoffs.

If I remember correctly, so far the play in has kept more teams competitive for the whole season than otherwise would have been.

So while on one hand, it expands the "possible" playoff teams to 20/30 instead of 16/30, on the other hand, it makes 7 and 8 try to fight harder to get to 6, because of not you could end up in the play in tournament and not make the playoffs. It makes 6 not able to relax, because falling to 7 isn't simply playing the #2 seed instead of #3 seed, but you have to now "earn" your spot, and it makes that 11th or 12th seed that is mathematically eliminated from 8th now have an incentive to win, because 10th can get you a chance.

So altogether, so far at least, it is making more teams more competitive.

---------

I've outlined in another thread my suggestion to further this process, and that "draft tiers" should be locked for teams 7-15 in each conference at anywhere from 50-60 or so games.

Spoiler:

Edrees · Post #76 » by **Edrees** » Wed Oct 25, 2023 8:38 pm

og15 wrote:
Edrees wrote:
tamaraw08 wrote:
I just don't think the league can really judge if a player is legitimately in pain or not. Even MRI results can reveal inconclusive but that doesn't mean a person is not really in pain or he is just faking it.
That is why I am proposing that the league will just make the win/loss record matter so much. The higher seed get as many as 5 home games while the lower seed get 2 in a 7 game series.

All the NBA's actions the last years have devalued the importance of winning in the regular season, such as adding a play in. They aren't going to move in the other direction. I would approve of that though, except for the Finals.

Well, the real issue is good luck with owners agreeing that the other team gets all the ticket sales and all the money that will be generated from possibly having an additional playoff game, not to mention the winning disadvantage.

Here's the thing about the play in and devaluing the regular season. Most teams in the beginning of the season are trying to win, with the exception of a few that come into the season preparing to lose, or accepting that outcome. At a certain point, some teams get out of contention for anything and just join the develop players / get better draft spot train.

The play in gives some teams who would join this train an incentive to keep winning as much as possible for the possibility of getting into the top 10 and possibly being in the playoffs.

If I remember correctly, so far the play in has kept more teams competitive for the whole season than otherwise would have been.

So while on one hand, it expands the "possible" playoff teams to 20/30 instead of 16/30, on the other hand, it makes 7 and 8 try to fight harder to get to 6, because of not you could end up in the play in tournament and not make the playoffs. It makes 6 not able to relax, because falling to 7 isn't simply playing the #2 seed instead of #3 seed, but you have to now "earn" your spot, and it makes that 11th or 12th seed that is mathematically eliminated from 8th now have an incentive to win, because 10th can get you a chance.

So altogether, so far at least, it is making more teams more competitive.

---------

I've outlined in another thread my suggestion to further this process, and that "draft tiers" should be locked for teams 7-15 in each conference at anywhere from 50-60 or so games.

Spoiler:
Tiers are:
1)Teams 30-26 (Bottom 1-5)
2) Teams 25-21 (Bottom 6-10)
3) Teams 20-16 (Bottom 11-14)
4) 7th and 8th in each conference
5) Top 6 playoff teams in each conference

Top 6 playoff teams draft position remains conventional.

Among the rest, within your tier, the record for the last 20-30 games determines how good your draft pick (or odds if preferred) will be. Best record gets 1st, etc, etc. The team with the worst record over the last 20-30 games in each tier moves down to the top of the next tier with a worse pick, eg: worst record among bottom 1-5 gets the 6th pick (or 6th best odds). The team with the best record in each tier below bottom 1-5 moves to the bottom of the better odds tier, eg: best record among bottom 6-10 moves to bottom of 1-5 and gets the 5th pick (or 5th best odds), replacing the team that has the worst record in that group.

So for the last 20-30 games you're playing:
For better seeding among 1-6 playoff teams
To not to get out of top 6 among 5 and 6
To get into top 6 and not out of top 8 among 7-8
To get into the top 10 among 9-13 (and move into the better pick tier)
Or trying to secure a better draft pick (or odds) among the rest by winning more

After 50-60 games, if two teams between tiers are tied in record, the winner of their head to head matchups gets into the "better" tier. If they are 1-1 for example, then whomever has the best record against their division, then conference, then it goes to point differential in their games. If they have only played one game and one team didn't get to be at home, sucks. (So 20, 30, 40 games in when you face another bad team you really have to think about whether you want to take it easy or not). Similarly for tied after the last 20-30 games, same time breakers.

**If you want some additional suspense, lottery night could become tie breaker night, and you don't break any ties with head to head or records, but instead with a lottery for any tied teams, if there are any.

Play-In Teams
Now, how about play-in teams? This set up allows a team to make the playoffs and still have a lottery pick (no Dallas tank for example). Let's say a team has the 11th worst record after 50-60 games, but they finish the season 15-5, best among the bottom 11-14 group, and then also make the play-in. That team would be in the playoffs and also in the lottery with the 10th pick (or 10th best odds).

This would allow everyone NBA season to end with every team playing for something. Lottery teams won't jus waive a good player so he can go to a contender, because they now need him to secure better lottery odds. Fans won't be cheering for their team to lose at the end of the season, because losing could take them from the 1st pick to the 6th pick.

I just don't think seeds 5 and 6 "relax" anyway. I think before the play in they still try to win games to ensure a higher seeding. Having the "threat" of going to 7 or 8 I don't think suddenly gives them incentive. Nobody wants to play the 1 or 2 seed first round. But what does happen is that a team that has played like **** all season can get hot for 1-2 weeks at the end of season and be in a better position than a team that has played consistent basketball all season long; that's what I mean y devaluting the meaning of the regular season. This was true to some degree in the NBA because teams get hot, but having an additional buffer of being able to lose more games early in the season makes it that much worse. The first 3 months of the regular season are essentially exhibition games, that's the cost of making more games competitive down the stretch in the final 1-2 weeks of the season which is what you are referring to by teams being "more' competitive.

When you are talking about teams "trying" to be competitive early in the season anyway, that doesn't change the fact that some teams still suck despite their best efforts, and due to the play in, their sucking doesn't really matter because theyll have plenty of chances to make up for it. This by definition means the first 3 months didn't mean much, despite the fact that teams are trying.

Long story short, when I say that the regular season is devalued I'm talking about the value of a single regular season win is valued less now than it was 10 years ago. I'm not referring to the effort level of the teams involved or the level of competition. As an analogy think of a tanking NFL team playing a team battling for seeding in the NFL, with a 50-3 win, the game is low competition, but the result of the win is still high value. I dont think those two things are necessarily the same thing. I do appreciate your response though and it gets me to think a bit more differently about it (less one sided) than I thought before.

tamaraw08 · Post #77 » by **tamaraw08** » Wed Oct 25, 2023 9:56 pm

og15 wrote:
Edrees wrote:
tamaraw08 wrote:

Among the rest, within your tier, the record for the last 20-30 games determines how good your draft pick (or odds if preferred) will be. Best record gets 1st, etc, etc. The team with the worst record over the last 20-30 games in each tier moves down to the top of the next tier with a worse pick, eg: worst record among bottom 1-5 gets the 6th pick (or 6th best odds)

Play-In Teams
Now, how about play-in teams? This set up allows a team to make the playoffs and still have a lottery pick (no Dallas tank for example). Let's say a team has the 11th worst record after 50-60 games, but they finish the season 15-5, best among the bottom 11-14 group, and then also make the play-in. That team would be in the playoffs and also in the lottery with the 10th pick (or 10th best odds).

.[/spoiler]

It's a good plan, my only question is what if the team with the worst record is legitimately bad? Management spent $ to acquire legit free agents but their main players were injured and/or just having the worst seasons? Are you really going to punish these teams even if they clearly showed efforts to put up a competitive squad?
For me, I just want to be clear cut, if a team like the Spurs already have the Top number one pick this summer, then their highest pick should be no higher than 4th. Detroit also should not be allowed to pick in the top 3 ESPECIALLY if these teams didn't even try to acquire legit free agents in the summer.

Post #78 » by **og15** » Thu Oct 26, 2023 12:08 am

tamaraw08 wrote:
og15 wrote:
Edrees wrote:

It's a good plan, my only question is what if the team with the worst record is legitimately bad? Management spent $ to acquire legit free agents but their main players were injured and/or just having the worst seasons? Are you really going to punish these teams even if they clearly showed efforts to put up a competitive squad?
For me, I just want to be clear cut, if a team like the Spurs already have the Top number one pick this summer, then their highest pick should be no higher than 4th. Detroit also should not be allowed to pick in the top 3 ESPECIALLY if these teams didn't even try to acquire legit free agents in the summer.

It won't be perfect, but they still get a lottery pick, they just aren't likely to get the #1 pick. They can also look to shore up their roster later in the season to get the best pick also vs committing to further losing, because now it isn't a negative to draft pick status. In the current situation they would just lean into the losing.

Edrees wrote:
og15 wrote:
Edrees wrote:
All the NBA's actions the last years have devalued the importance of winning in the regular season, such as adding a play in. They aren't going to move in the other direction. I would approve of that though, except for the Finals.

Well, the real issue is good luck with owners agreeing that the other team gets all the ticket sales and all the money that will be generated from possibly having an additional playoff game, not to mention the winning disadvantage.

Here's the thing about the play in and devaluing the regular season. Most teams in the beginning of the season are trying to win, with the exception of a few that come into the season preparing to lose, or accepting that outcome. At a certain point, some teams get out of contention for anything and just join the develop players / get better draft spot train.

The play in gives some teams who would join this train an incentive to keep winning as much as possible for the possibility of getting into the top 10 and possibly being in the playoffs.

If I remember correctly, so far the play in has kept more teams competitive for the whole season than otherwise would have been.

So while on one hand, it expands the "possible" playoff teams to 20/30 instead of 16/30, on the other hand, it makes 7 and 8 try to fight harder to get to 6, because of not you could end up in the play in tournament and not make the playoffs. It makes 6 not able to relax, because falling to 7 isn't simply playing the #2 seed instead of #3 seed, but you have to now "earn" your spot, and it makes that 11th or 12th seed that is mathematically eliminated from 8th now have an incentive to win, because 10th can get you a chance.

So altogether, so far at least, it is making more teams more competitive.

---------

I've outlined in another thread my suggestion to further this process, and that "draft tiers" should be locked for teams 7-15 in each conference at anywhere from 50-60 or so games.

Spoiler:
Tiers are:
1)Teams 30-26 (Bottom 1-5)
2) Teams 25-21 (Bottom 6-10)
3) Teams 20-16 (Bottom 11-14)
4) 7th and 8th in each conference
5) Top 6 playoff teams in each conference

Top 6 playoff teams draft position remains conventional.

Among the rest, within your tier, the record for the last 20-30 games determines how good your draft pick (or odds if preferred) will be. Best record gets 1st, etc, etc. The team with the worst record over the last 20-30 games in each tier moves down to the top of the next tier with a worse pick, eg: worst record among bottom 1-5 gets the 6th pick (or 6th best odds). The team with the best record in each tier below bottom 1-5 moves to the bottom of the better odds tier, eg: best record among bottom 6-10 moves to bottom of 1-5 and gets the 5th pick (or 5th best odds), replacing the team that has the worst record in that group.

So for the last 20-30 games you're playing:
For better seeding among 1-6 playoff teams
To not to get out of top 6 among 5 and 6
To get into top 6 and not out of top 8 among 7-8
To get into the top 10 among 9-13 (and move into the better pick tier)
Or trying to secure a better draft pick (or odds) among the rest by winning more

After 50-60 games, if two teams between tiers are tied in record, the winner of their head to head matchups gets into the "better" tier. If they are 1-1 for example, then whomever has the best record against their division, then conference, then it goes to point differential in their games. If they have only played one game and one team didn't get to be at home, sucks. (So 20, 30, 40 games in when you face another bad team you really have to think about whether you want to take it easy or not). Similarly for tied after the last 20-30 games, same time breakers.

**If you want some additional suspense, lottery night could become tie breaker night, and you don't break any ties with head to head or records, but instead with a lottery for any tied teams, if there are any.

Play-In Teams
Now, how about play-in teams? This set up allows a team to make the playoffs and still have a lottery pick (no Dallas tank for example). Let's say a team has the 11th worst record after 50-60 games, but they finish the season 15-5, best among the bottom 11-14 group, and then also make the play-in. That team would be in the playoffs and also in the lottery with the 10th pick (or 10th best odds).

This would allow everyone NBA season to end with every team playing for something. Lottery teams won't jus waive a good player so he can go to a contender, because they now need him to secure better lottery odds. Fans won't be cheering for their team to lose at the end of the season, because losing could take them from the 1st pick to the 6th pick.

I just don't think seeds 5 and 6 "relax" anyway. I think before the play in they still try to win games to ensure a higher seeding. Having the "threat" of going to 7 or 8 I don't think suddenly gives them incentive. Nobody wants to play the 1 or 2 seed first round. But what does happen is that a team that has played like **** all season can get hot for 1-2 weeks at the end of season and be in a better position than a team that has played consistent basketball all season long; that's what I mean y devaluting the meaning of the regular season. This was true to some degree in the NBA because teams get hot, but having an additional buffer of being able to lose more games early in the season makes it that much worse. The first 3 months of the regular season are essentially exhibition games, that's the cost of making more games competitive down the stretch in the final 1-2 weeks of the season which is what you are referring to by teams being "more' competitive.

When you are talking about teams "trying" to be competitive early in the season anyway, that doesn't change the fact that some teams still suck despite their best efforts, and due to the play in, their sucking doesn't really matter because theyll have plenty of chances to make up for it. This by definition means the first 3 months didn't mean much, despite the fact that teams are trying.

Long story short, when I say that the regular season is devalued I'm talking about the value of a single regular season win is valued less now than it was 10 years ago. I'm not referring to the effort level of the teams involved or the level of competition. As an analogy think of a tanking NFL team playing a team battling for seeding in the NFL, with a 50-3 win, the game is low competition, but the result of the win is still high value. I dont think those two things are necessarily the same thing. I do appreciate your response though and it gets me to think a bit more differently about it (less one sided) than I thought before.

I understand the thought for sure.

I also don't think they relax, I was being a bit hyperbolic there lol

You're right in a sense that the first part could be seen like that, but there's a limit of how far you can actually be back to be competitive, so I'm not sure how wise it is if a team is truly trying to be in that competition even for play in.

The 7-10 records so far have been:

2021 East:
36-36
34-38
34-38
33-39

2021 West:
42-30
39-33
38-34
33-39

2022 East
44-38
44-38
43-39
43-39

2022 West
46-36
42-40
36-46
34-48

2023 East
44-38
41-41
41-41
40-42

2023 West
43-39
42-40
42-40
40-42

Furthest away was West in 2022 where the 10th seed was 8 wins behind 8th. 2021 West was also 6 wins behind, but the other 6 ones the teams are within 1-3 wins of each other.

It seems like it's working pretty well in terms of making teams be more competitive not just at the end, but through the whole season, but certainly towards the end the team that's 6 or 8 games away from 8th doesn't necessarily have to quit (I believe that was the Spurs both times).

So far it's been pretty tough to just actually really suck all season and be in the top 10 due to just a late run, since you do have to be within decent striking distance still. If you make it due to a late run, then you probably didn't suck too bad all, or it was injuries or something. It would be tough to just chill the first part of the season and just say, "oh we will just get within 3 games of the 8th seed in the second part".

...but it does still affect the value as you say, though I think the NBA is trying to avoid uncompetitive games, and definitely later in the season when for example football is gone and NBA has more spotlight for more fans.

Pattycakes · Post #79 » by **Pattycakes** » Thu Oct 26, 2023 12:22 am

Beal seems unnecessary in Phoenix.. like they could actually form chemistry as is.

Revived · Post #80 » by **Revived** » Thu Oct 26, 2023 12:39 am

Pattycakes wrote:Beal seems unnecessary in Phoenix.. like they could actually form chemistry as is.

Nah KD is basically washed and can’t hit any jumpers. Shot 22% from 3 against Denver and awful yesterday too.

Need a reliable secondary scorer.