2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

[eminence]

You (and everyone you have spoken with somehow) are definitely the exception though. And I know you understand that because you see the same things we see.

And once again the different angle shows the same thing as the first one. And hand on the arm. And the league decided in real time and after review its not a foul.

I'm not trying to argue if it should be a foul or not. My disagreement with you is that I don't believe the league is trying to lie about it to what protect the ref? Because they have zero credibility if they regularly lie to us. So I am going to take the more logical explanation that they honestly didn't believe that to be a foul.

Because they aren't stupid and they aren't going to treat their fans and their media as stupid. It's self-defeating. But I also realize I am spitting into the wind. This is the current conversation among too many NBA fans. Instead of focusing on everything that is right they find something to pick at. Which could be fine I guess, except it only ruins their own enjoyment of the product.

By accepting the human nature of the endeavor and understanding what the league is after, I'm able to not get so hung up on officiating and can enjoy all the brilliant talent we have in the league.

Your position is that the majority of fans that complain about refs think that individual refs are regularly going against league directives to make 'bad' calls? (subjective on bad) Hard disagree.

You're the one treating fans as stupid.

Just cause folks shorthand it as 'these heckin refs man' doesn't mean they couldn't further articulate their point. It don't take a genius to know that if you do a consistently bad job in your bosses eyes you get canned. Fans are well aware that refs are doing the job that the league wants them to do.

[AEnigma]

And once again the different angle shows the same thing as the first one. And hand on the arm. And the league decided in real time and after review its not a foul.

I'm not trying to argue if it should be a foul or not.

Do you believe that call by rule should always be called as a non-foul, and that any time it is called as a foul, that is in fact incorrect and the league marks such a call as incorrect on its L2Ms?

My disagreement with you is that I don't believe the league is trying to lie about it to what protect the ref? Because they have zero credibility if they regularly lie to us.

Correct, they have zero credibility.

So I am going to take the more logical explanation that they honestly didn't believe that to be a foul.

That is not a more logical explanation unless you think their “beliefs” change game to game. Which would be just as much of a problem even if that were the case.

Because they aren't stupid

Correct.

and they aren't going to treat their fans and their media as stupid. It's self-defeating.

Why not? What is the penalty?

But I also realize I am spitting into the wind. This is the current conversation among too many NBA fans. Instead of focusing on everything that is right they find something to pick at. Which could be fine I guess, except it only ruins their own enjoyment of the product.

Well yeah it further highlights the arbitrariness of every game. Fouls being decided on a whim hurts emotional investment.

By accepting the human nature of the endeavor and understanding what the league is after, I'm able to not get so hung up on officiating and can enjoy all the brilliant talent we have in the league.

Okay but you do not need to salute the league for pretending its refereeing is better than it actually is.

I think all the crying about franchise bias is generally dumb, but there are players who visibly and demonstrably get better or worse calls than they deserve over large samples, and the league manufacturing a report to deny that does nothing to fix the issue.

[Texas Chuck]

You (and everyone you have spoken with somehow) are definitely the exception though. And I know you understand that because you see the same things we see.

And once again the different angle shows the same thing as the first one. And hand on the arm. And the league decided in real time and after review its not a foul.

I'm not trying to argue if it should be a foul or not. My disagreement with you is that I don't believe the league is trying to lie about it to what protect the ref? Because they have zero credibility if they regularly lie to us. So I am going to take the more logical explanation that they honestly didn't believe that to be a foul.

Because they aren't stupid and they aren't going to treat their fans and their media as stupid. It's self-defeating. But I also realize I am spitting into the wind. This is the current conversation among too many NBA fans. Instead of focusing on everything that is right they find something to pick at. Which could be fine I guess, except it only ruins their own enjoyment of the product.

By accepting the human nature of the endeavor and understanding what the league is after, I'm able to not get so hung up on officiating and can enjoy all the brilliant talent we have in the league.

Your position is that the majority of fans that complain about refs think that individual refs are regularly going against league directives to make 'bad' calls? (subjective on bad) Hard disagree.

You're the one treating fans as stupid.

Just cause folks shorthand it as 'these heckin refs man' doesn't mean they couldn't further articulate their point. It don't take a genius to know that if you do a consistently bad job in your bosses eyes you get canned. Fans are well aware that refs are doing the job that the league wants them to do.

I think if they mean they are upset with the league its on them to articulate that yeah. But when you are in the arena shouting refs suck. Or tweeting it. Or starting threads here? Yeah that's not the message I hear.

I'll take responsibility though that somehow I've missed the boat on what they mean, but I think you speak for you way more than you do the masses. I think a lot of them don't mean what you claim they do.

And the league absolutely evaluates their refs constantly. And refs do lose their jobs. Remember when Cuban made this his mission? Yeah he was a petty homer fan worried about calls against his team. But his bigger issue was that even he as a governor of one of 30 teams couldn't get info on how the refs were evaluated. Then he learned they evaluated themselves and naturally they gave their peers good reviews.

He paid millions in fines but got it changed. Just like with HR at your company, you don't get to see it. The league isn't going to publicly flog their officials. But that doesn't mean they don't evaluate them.

And to the other guy, none of this makes me a league shill. It just makes me not a conspiracy guy.

[AEnigma]

Fascinating how common it has become to dismissively and derogatorily label “businesses act deceitfully” as a conspiracy.

[Texas Chuck]

Not as sad as it is to make everything a conspiracy by default when its not exactly tailored to our liking.....

[Peregrine01]

I’m not sure it’s right to assume that the league has their finger on the pulse of what fans actually want. I also suspect that they play more to the preferences of their marquee players. Those two things are not the same.

[AEnigma]

Not as sad as it is to make everything a conspiracy by default when its not exactly tailored to our liking.....

Well when you default to a uselessly broad application of the term, yes, it probably will look like “eVeRyThInG iS a CoNsPiRaCy.” Corporations are not innocent actors; what a crackpot notion!

You do not want to be a shill for the league, yet here you are pretending L2Ms are some objective measure and the only sin at play is inexact tailoring.

[falcolombardi]

Is probably more mundane and the nba refs themselves are self aware of how many or which mistakes they can "admit to" without looking badly (regardless of what the actual acceptable amount of mistakes for a ref is in a sport as fast and subtle in contact/rules as this one can be)

The refs are a group of its own with its own interests and have a stake at how they present their work to the league owners

[Doctor MJ]

Calls get missed all the time, I get that and it's fine enough. But it really seems like those that sell contact (flop) get a lot more benefit of the doubt on their whistle on the offensive end.

Offensive players do get more of a benefit of the doubt. It isn't bad officiating. The refs are calling the game the way they are instructed.

The NBA wants rules interpreted in favor of offense. Blame management and the fans who prefer watching offense to whatever degree offensive flopping annoys you/

I, and everyone I've ever spoken with, are talking about league directives/rules (aka management) when talking about reffing generally.

I think it's a point of confusion that's hard to clear up because the words "reffing" and "officiating" are both used to mean a) what rules the refs are reffing and b) the quality of reffing the refs do.

I try to use "officiating" when talking about league policy, and versions of "refereeing" when talking about referee action because that would be a good way to delineate imho, but I don't think the distinction in usage is so clean.

So yeah, I think the referees of today's game are the best refs in history in terms of how they're expected by the NBA to perform...but I think they are being asked to do some things that are not what's best for the game. A problem of officiating rather than with referees.

Last note: I think you could argue that it would be better if we avoided using the term "officiating" to refer to league policy, and instead use the more abstract-sounding "officiation" which has certainly been used in sport context for forever. Thing is, the NBA actually uses the word "Officiating" rather than "Officiation". Sigh...

[The-Power]

How their defense remains so resilient despite Robinson or OG missing time shows just how important defensive coaching is.

It also shows the importance of momentum. NBA defense is determined largely a mix of players, tactics, and effort. And especially on the latter, it's a lot easier to put in the effort if things are generally going well and you're having fun because of it. Effort can also be boosted, at least in the short term, when you know that you'll have to cover for good defenders out of the line-up.

edit: And, of course, it helps not having truly weak links on defense. A team that plays with effort and does not have any weak links is going to make it a lot tougher for opponents to consistently score on high efficiency shots.

[eminence]

Hey

.

Quick question, do you know which season it was Schayes played a large portion of in a cast on his right hand?

I'm pretty sure it was '51 or '52 but unsure which and couldn't find it on a quick search online.

[eminence]

How do folks feel about the Allstar selections?

Brown/Banchero/Randle the 3 in the East that gave me some pause. Celtics I would've loved Derrick White there, but really their 2-5 are all just rock solid, not sure any clearly deserved it, not surprised they went with Brown. The other two I don't mind, but they don't feel like clear picks (I'd consider both the traded Raptors strongly). Not surprised anybody out of the top 8 didn't get one, Mikal and some others would've been fine, but nobody clearly laboring in the wasteland. So I'd flip White/Brown and OG/Randle I think.

In the West. Gobert over KAT easily imo, but ahh well. I would've liked Chet to make it as well, but not surprised the rookie didn't. The Clippers may have sneakily deserved a third guy with how hard their big 3 are carrying. For sure would've liked a King. Sabonis/Fox both reasonable imo. Pelicans I don't really see a standout. Lauri/Sengun/FVV all deserving of consideration. Flipping Gobert/KAT, and then adding Chet/Harden/Fox for Davis/Curry/???. Couldn't decide on the Sun to drop, maybe not on Harden, but tricky.

[Doctor MJ]

How do folks feel about the Allstar selections?

Brown/Banchero/Randle the 3 in the East that gave me some pause. Celtics I would've loved Derrick White there, but really their 2-5 are all just rock solid, not sure any clearly deserved it, not surprised they went with Brown. The other two I don't mind, but they don't feel like clear picks (I'd consider both the traded Raptors strongly). Not surprised anybody out of the top 8 didn't get one, Mikal and some others would've been fine, but nobody clearly laboring in the wasteland. So I'd flip White/Brown and OG/Randle I think.

In the West. Gobert over KAT easily imo, but ahh well. I would've liked Chet to make it as well, but not surprised the rookie didn't. The Clippers may have sneakily deserved a third guy with how hard their big 3 are carrying. For sure would've liked a King. Sabonis/Fox both reasonable imo. Pelicans I don't really see a standout. Lauri/Sengun/FVV all deserving of consideration. Flipping Gobert/KAT, and then adding Chet/Harden/Fox for Davis/Curry/???. Couldn't decide on the Sun to drop, maybe not on Harden, but tricky.

Well first thing is that I think Banchero is nowhere near all-star worthy. He's getting the nod because Orlando started hot with him as the anointed star, but they've fallen to the point they may end up in the lottery, and they've been better with him on the bench the whole time.

I would not choose Randle either, even for a replacement spot. I do think OG is a more valuable player than him and so if I were picking a 2nd Knick, it would be OG.

Brown I'm not excited by and would choose teammate White over him...but I think he'd make my 12 man roster still.

Beyond that, I probably pick Jimmy over Bam to represent the Heat.

Over in the West, KAT making it over Gobert just really sucks. I'm hearing some people talk about the all-star as being about entertainment rather than competitive impact, but do people actually find KAT entertaining? To me the Wolves should have had 2 all-stars and they should have been Edwards & Gobert.

I also think Fox deserves a spot over Booker.

In terms of Davis & Curry, I respect choosing other guys over them, but this is where I keep in mind that this is about fan interest above everything else. These are amazing players still, and the fans will be interested in seeing them.

Re: Chet. Honestly, I'm super-impressed by him and wouldn't mind seeing him sneak in as a replacement. Like him more than Paulo.

[AEnigma]

East:
Brunson — Yes, and should have been a starter.
Mitchell — Yes, and also probably should have been a starter if not Brunson.
Maxey — Sure.
Jaylen — Unsurprising, but continues to not be better than Mikal.
Randle — Continues to not be better than Siakam.
Bam — Sure, good to have a centre.
Banchero — Continue to not be better than Barnes.

No strong criticisms in the west. Gobert is an extremely expected exclusion. Sabonis over Towns then could have been nice to spread the representation, but the conference has a lot of talent and I do not care much to separate those options.

[Owly]

Hey

.

Quick question, do you know which season it was Schayes played a large portion of in a cast on his right hand?

I'm pretty sure it was '51 or '52 but unsure which and couldn't find it on a quick search online.

Schayes became an ambidextrous shooter when his right wrist was broken in 1952. "Losing the use of my right wrist was the best break I ever got," he later said. "I developed a left-handed shot that made me twice as effective."

Though he broke his arm again, Schayes played with the arm in a cast against Minneapolis in the 1954 Finals, inspiring his team by his presence. But George Mikan's team won the see-saw series in seven games."

The Nats arrived at the [1954] Finals somewhat bloodied but unbowed after the brutal eastern playoffs. Paul Semour suffered a broken thumb and forwards Earl Lloyd and Dolph Schayes had broken hands.
..
A fractured hand slowed Dolph Schayes in the finals.

Otoh (and from the above) 52 seems like bigger story (and perhaps what you're primarily thinking of) where it was long enough in the season for him to develop his left hand. The '54 seems to be implied to have been from the playoff ... (I've seen a picture from the round-robin series where he's not wearing a cast).

[parsnips33]

I love this Knicks team

Brunson has one of the prettiest most stylish games in the league and everybody else hustles like crazy

[Owly]

Hey

.

Quick question, do you know which season it was Schayes played a large portion of in a cast on his right hand?

I'm pretty sure it was '51 or '52 but unsure which and couldn't find it on a quick search online.

Schayes became an ambidextrous shooter when his right wrist was broken in 1952. "Losing the use of my right wrist was the best break I ever got," he later said. "I developed a left-handed shot that made me twice as effective."

Though he broke his arm again, Schayes played with the arm in a cast against Minneapolis in the 1954 Finals, inspiring his team by his presence. But George Mikan's team won the see-saw series in seven games."

The Nats arrived at the [1954] Finals somewhat bloodied but unbowed after the brutal eastern playoffs. Paul Semour suffered a broken thumb and forwards Earl Lloyd and Dolph Schayes had broken hands.
..
A fractured hand slowed Dolph Schayes in the finals.

Otoh (and from the above) 52 seems like bigger story (and perhaps what you're primarily thinking of) where it was long enough in the season for him to develop his left hand. The '54 seems to be implied to have been from the playoff ... (I've seen a picture from the round-robin series where he's not wearing a cast).

Tangent but from Tall Tales (Pluto [functionally an editor], '92). I didn't catch anything about this in my skim but really felt like perpetual motion was something people were hammering in what the noted about Dolph.

[konr0167]

How do folks feel about the Allstar selections?

Brown/Banchero/Randle the 3 in the East that gave me some pause. Celtics I would've loved Derrick White there, but really their 2-5 are all just rock solid, not sure any clearly deserved it, not surprised they went with Brown. The other two I don't mind, but they don't feel like clear picks (I'd consider both the traded Raptors strongly). Not surprised anybody out of the top 8 didn't get one, Mikal and some others would've been fine, but nobody clearly laboring in the wasteland. So I'd flip White/Brown and OG/Randle I think.

In the West. Gobert over KAT easily imo, but ahh well. I would've liked Chet to make it as well, but not surprised the rookie didn't. The Clippers may have sneakily deserved a third guy with how hard their big 3 are carrying. For sure would've liked a King. Sabonis/Fox both reasonable imo. Pelicans I don't really see a standout. Lauri/Sengun/FVV all deserving of consideration. Flipping Gobert/KAT, and then adding Chet/Harden/Fox for Davis/Curry/???. Couldn't decide on the Sun to drop, maybe not on Harden, but tricky.

him fine with randle but i don't think paolo or brown deserved it when there are players like trae, and scottie who i just think are clearly better players

i agree rudy clears KAT but sadly his rep sucks
chet idk he's been kinda iffy recently and there are some other that just would also be there before him (fox, sabonis, rudy)

[eminence]

Schayes became an ambidextrous shooter when his right wrist was broken in 1952. "Losing the use of my right wrist was the best break I ever got," he later said. "I developed a left-handed shot that made me twice as effective."

Though he broke his arm again, Schayes played with the arm in a cast against Minneapolis in the 1954 Finals, inspiring his team by his presence. But George Mikan's team won the see-saw series in seven games."

The Nats arrived at the [1954] Finals somewhat bloodied but unbowed after the brutal eastern playoffs. Paul Semour suffered a broken thumb and forwards Earl Lloyd and Dolph Schayes had broken hands.
..
A fractured hand slowed Dolph Schayes in the finals.

Otoh (and from the above) 52 seems like bigger story (and perhaps what you're primarily thinking of) where it was long enough in the season for him to develop his left hand. The '54 seems to be implied to have been from the playoff ... (I've seen a picture from the round-robin series where he's not wearing a cast).

Tangent but from Tall Tales (Pluto [functionally an editor], '92). I didn't catch anything about this in my skim but really felt like perpetual motion was something people were hammering in what the noted about Dolph.

Schayes himself gave an interview where he talks about his game being based on movement (and being more focused on using his shooting to set up his drives vs being a shooter). Lots of praise for the New York City schoolyards.

He had a quote to the effect of quote "Basketball is a game of movement... so move!"

[falcolombardi]

I feel like there are not huge mistakes in all star picks albeit some of these feel more like reputation picks

Jaylen brown pick is fine in a vacuum and understandable to let the top rs team have a second player, but i think he is a bit carried by being perennially linked to tatum and to boston success when tatum has always been clear of him on both ends and he may have been overcredited for boston success (while not necesarrily being a more important player than horford and smart were or than white and jrue are now)
he may be getting the perrennial star treatment i dont think he is good enough for where they get all star selections fairly automatically

Julius randle is in a similar place for me as a good player beneffiting from knicks success that i dont think should start becoming a "lock" for all star due to name familiarity, siakam and anunoby suffer from having spent most season in a lottery team but there exist other options. Even in a down year i would pick butler above randle for example

In the west i think one of fox and sabonis deserved to be rewarded albeit i understand is such a tough slate to get into in the west