PC Board OT thread

[Dr Spaceman]

The biggest premise of my Korver argument was that he was not a guy who could be defended by normal means. And in the regular season, this was true, teams were going to extreme lengths to try to prevent the guy from getting his shot up. It seems though from the first two playoff series, that teams are having success just having a single disciplined defender shade him hard. I think teams have realized how limited he is off the dribble or inside the arc, and so they're having his defender play overly aggressive defense to not allow him easy catches. And it seems like both teams have sprinkled in a switching system in case someone gets tied up on a screen. So effectively Korver has been stopped just by teams having someone close to him at all times.

.

This is a big part of why I think coaching is overrated in the regular season and terribly underrated in the post-season. You just don't enough time to effectively game plan against every team--especially teams not in your own division or conference and when faced with something like what the Hawks were doing this year its just really tough to get your guys to defend it right. But in the playoffs you can really get your guys dialed in.

Now Korver is still impacting games because of the coverage he requires, but I do think you may have gotten a little ahead of yourself on how much impact he was actually having in the RS. And I say that as a guy who has long felt like Korver was underrated as a basketball player #notjustashooter

Sure. Good points.

I want to clarify, though: to me this doesn't change anything about the RS impact he was having. To me, that was very real, and doesn't get discounted based on what has happened in this series; for 82 games he was having star-like impact on offense. That hasn't changed for me.

When Korver and the Hawks started blowing up, more than anything it was a signal about where the NBA was headed. A guy who in previous years was nothing more than a shooter was suddenly leading the charge on a 60 win team that had a historic winning streak. Given the sudden realization by everyone in basketball that shooting is the future, and the way the best off-ball shooter in the world was suddenly looking like a fringe MVP-type player in terms of impact, the question to me basically became "Can you build a championship-level team with this guy as your best player?" And at least in 2015, it seems that Korver is too limited to do that. I don't think this answers the question eternally, because in the future maybe there's a Korver who has just a bit more ball-handling ability who really can do what Korver attempted. That remains to be seen.

So yeah, I'm in no way questioning his regular season based on what I see here. I'm not going to start proclaiming that Korver is the #2 player in the east anymore, but at the same time I think it's reasonable to say he was during the regular season. The way I see it, I was simply following the evidence, and given that there's absolutely zero precedent for what we saw this season I don't think I was out of line. That was simply me refusing to place a ceiling on what a guy like Korver could accomplish based on the league's trends. Obviously with the playoffs I have a clearer picture of where that ceiling is, and it's far higher than I think anyone could have predicted except coach Bud.

And people saying, "told you so, look at the playoffs!" are just wrong to me, because the regular season happened. It's real, inarguable. Nobody arguing with me ever took the position of "Well, Korver looks like a top 15 player now, but let's see how that scheme fares in the playoffs". Instead, it was "Korver? LOL you've got to be smoking something" which to me is just a basic denial of facts.

That last paragraph isn't directed at you, BTW, just my general frustration with the way these debates have gone.

[Clyde Frazier]

Hate to say it, but even for the east, these 2 second round series have been pretty brutal to watch. Only saving grace has been how close the games are, but they've been quite ugly at times. I mean, the hawks and wizards last night didn't really go on "runs". The other team just couldn't score for several min at a time. It was embarrassing. Bulls Cavs isn't much better outside of the impressive individual performance here and there.

Then you have the hack-a-whoever in clippers rockets, which really makes it unwatchable. And there's something very uneven about grizzlies warriors, which at times has certainly been entertaining, but something's missing. There have been a lot of good individual moments in the playoffs this year, but the overall play has come off as substandard to me. Kinda deflating. Clippers Spurs being incredible didn't help, either.

[And that probably does have a lot to do with all the injured players not playing... but it's becoming more and more evident now.]

[Texas Chuck]

Spoiler:

Sure. Good points.

I want to clarify, though: to me this doesn't change anything about the RS impact he was having. To me, that was very real, and doesn't get discounted based on what has happened in this series; for 82 games he was having star-like impact on offense. That hasn't changed for me.

When Korver and the Hawks started blowing up, more than anything it was a signal about where the NBA was headed. A guy who in previous years was nothing more than a shooter was suddenly leading the charge on a 60 win team that had a historic winning streak. Given the sudden realization by everyone in basketball that shooting is the future, and the way the best off-ball shooter in the world was suddenly looking like a fringe MVP-type player in terms of impact, the question to me basically became "Can you build a championship-level team with this guy as your best player?" And at least in 2015, it seems that Korver is too limited to do that. I don't think this answers the question eternally, because in the future maybe there's a Korver who has just a bit more ball-handling ability who really can do what Korver attempted. That remains to be seen.

So yeah, I'm in no way questioning his regular season based on what I see here. I'm not going to start proclaiming that Korver is the #2 player in the east anymore, but at the same time I think it's reasonable to say he was during the regular season. The way I see it, I was simply following the evidence, and given that there's absolutely zero precedent for what we saw this season I don't think I was out of line. That was simply me refusing to place a ceiling on what a guy like Korver could accomplish based on the league's trends. Obviously with the playoffs I have a clearer picture of where that ceiling is, and it's far higher than I think anyone could have predicted except coach Bud.

And people saying, "told you so, look at the playoffs!" are just wrong to me, because the regular season happened. It's real, inarguable. Nobody arguing with me ever took the position of "Well, Korver looks like a top 15 player now, but let's see how that scheme fares in the playoffs". Instead, it was "Korver? LOL you've got to be smoking something" which to me is just a basic denial of facts.

That last paragraph isn't directed at you, BTW, just my general frustration with the way these debates have gone.

I appreciate you not directing that at me, but if I'm being completely honest, I have to admit that my initial reaction to you talking about Korver in near-MVP level terms was highly skeptical. Not that I would have ever suggested you were smoking something as obviously I have tons of respect for your opinion and know you weren't going to step off a cliff without a belief that your analysis of him had real wings. But yeah part of me initially was like--but its Kyle Korver. So I appreciated you forcing me to take a new and harder look at the guy.

My question for you in the regular season remains my question now: why are we only seeing this type of impact from Korver this year? Because I believe my first question was whether or not we saw this type of thing from him previously and I believe even you acknowledged he didn't. So when I see a guy suddenly have impact that a respected mind like you rates only behind Lebron(I'm assuming you have #1 in the East, right?) I'm skeptical if we are giving too much credit to him for what the team is doing. Does the return of Al Horford not matter more? Or the fact that you gave nearly 6000 minutes last season to the quartet of Brand, Mack, Scott, and Williams and this year those players only played about 2500 minutes(obviously none by Lou)? Korver was fantastic, but could he be as effective with the wrong guys around him? And if he can't its hard for me to see him in the same elevated terms you do.

But I very much applaud your willingness to not doubt Korver because its unconventional. I've stated many times myself how bothered I get when guys claim guys can't be having the impact they are clearly having because of X and Y or Z(see Kidd, Jason as perhaps the best example of this). So I am fully willing to buy into Korver being able to have more impact than we would think based on our preconceptions of him and of players of his ilk.

[Dr Spaceman]

I appreciate you not directing that at me, but if I'm being completely honest, I have to admit that my initial reaction to you talking about Korver in near-MVP level terms was highly skeptical. Not that I would have ever suggested you were smoking something as obviously I have tons of respect for your opinion and know you weren't going to step off a cliff without a belief that your analysis of him had real wings. But yeah part of me initially was like--but its Kyle Korver. So I appreciated you forcing me to take a new and harder look at the guy.

Yeah, I've no problem with skepticism, as long as you're open to honest reflection. I understand it's pretty out of left field. Appreciate the kind words.

My question for you in the regular season remains my question now: why are we only seeing this type of impact from Korver this year? Because I believe my first question was whether or not we saw this type of thing from him previously and I believe even you acknowledged he didn't. So when I see a guy suddenly have impact that a respected mind like you rates only behind Lebron(I'm assuming you have #1 in the East, right?) I'm skeptical if we are giving too much credit to him for what the team is doing. Does the return of Al Horford not matter more? Or the fact that you gave nearly 6000 minutes last season to the quartet of Brand, Mack, Scott, and Williams and this year those players only played about 2500 minutes(obviously none by Lou)? Korver was fantastic, but could he be as effective with the wrong guys around him? And if he can't its hard for me to see him in the same elevated terms you do.

To your first question: well, the simple answer is that no one ever thought of creating a Korver-centric scheme before this season. I mean, the guy literally won COY because nobody saw this happening in the slightest. The team so drastically exceeded expectations that media members were falling over themselves to give them accolades. Budz recognized what an absurd weapon he had in Kyle and bled it for all it was worth. So for me, when I see a chain of events like: [Innovative Coach designs Korver-centric scheme -> Korver shocks the world by looking like a low-tier superstar, well above what anyone could've projected in their wildest dreams -> Korver's team wins 17 games in a row en route to a 60 win season, again drastically better than anyone predicted -> Said coach is widely regarded as one of the best in the league in only his second season] and then you ask "Why hasn't Korver always played this well?" I interpret that question as, "Why hasn't Korver played for a coach who's smarter than everyone else before?". I mean, Bud won COY pretty explicitly because of the scheme he designed around Korver. So it's widely recognized in league circles that he saw something no other coach was capable of.

The obvious corollary here is then that "If Korver can only have star impact in this scheme, is he really a star?" to which I'd respond: if there's a single other player in the league that could replace Korver and replicate what happened this year, then you'd have a point. Otherwise, you're talking about a coach building an offensive scheme around the unique talents of a single player, resulting in huge impact for said player and an elite offensive team. Sounds like a star, no?

And ironically his playoff struggles almost validate him in a way: Korver's been bad, and barely making any impact in the playoffs. Horford has clearly been better. And yet this Horford-centric team just lost to the Wiz without Wall, and limped past a dreadful BKN team. It's pretty clear how desperately the Hawks miss Korver's huge impact.

Re: effectiveness with wrong guys; yeah, you have a good point here. Kyle is one of the strangest players I can imagine in that his value to a team grows almost exponentially the better that team becomes. On a team like the Knicks, he'd be trash as the offensive focus. I think there are close to 50 players who could do more with that roster. But add him to one of the top playoff teams in the West? The dude barely needs 6 shots a game to make his impact, and when he does shoot the ROI is better than any single player in the league. I might venture as far as to say no player could add more value to a pre-existing title contender than Korver.

And really, if our goal is to win a championship, why should we put that much stock into what a guy can do with a middling roster, when he's proven he can provide massive lift to a "very good" roster?

The economic implications of this are fascinating. Theoretically, teams with championship aspirations should be ponying up whatever it takes to nab this guy due to the insane value he can bring alongside other offensive talent. And yet, these are the very teams that couldn't afford him, given that the offensive talent they already have likely commands huge salaries and assets. And the teams that could afford a Korver aren't the teams he'd make the biggest impact on.

Anyway, this is all very fascinating to me. Korver is an extreme case in so many ways- and the implications of this season are potentially pretty huge.

[Dr Spaceman]

I appreciate you not directing that at me, but if I'm being completely honest, I have to admit that my initial reaction to you talking about Korver in near-MVP level terms was highly skeptical. Not that I would have ever suggested you were smoking something as obviously I have tons of respect for your opinion and know you weren't going to step off a cliff without a belief that your analysis of him had real wings. But yeah part of me initially was like--but its Kyle Korver. So I appreciated you forcing me to take a new and harder look at the guy.

Yeah, I've no problem with skepticism, as long as you're open to honest reflection. I understand it's pretty out of left field. Appreciate the kind words.

My question for you in the regular season remains my question now: why are we only seeing this type of impact from Korver this year? Because I believe my first question was whether or not we saw this type of thing from him previously and I believe even you acknowledged he didn't. So when I see a guy suddenly have impact that a respected mind like you rates only behind Lebron(I'm assuming you have #1 in the East, right?) I'm skeptical if we are giving too much credit to him for what the team is doing. Does the return of Al Horford not matter more? Or the fact that you gave nearly 6000 minutes last season to the quartet of Brand, Mack, Scott, and Williams and this year those players only played about 2500 minutes(obviously none by Lou)? Korver was fantastic, but could he be as effective with the wrong guys around him? And if he can't its hard for me to see him in the same elevated terms you do.

To your first question: well, the simple answer is that no one ever thought of creating a Korver-centric scheme before this season. I mean, the guy literally won COY because nobody saw this happening in the slightest. The team so drastically exceeded expectations that media members were falling over themselves to give them accolades. Budz recognized what an absurd weapon he had in Kyle and bled it for all it was worth. So for me, when I see a chain of events like: [Innovative Coach designs Korver-centric scheme -> Korver shocks the world by looking like a low-tier superstar, well above what anyone could've projected in their wildest dreams -> Korver's team wins 17 games in a row en route to a 60 win season, again drastically better than anyone predicted -> Said coach is widely regarded as one of the best in the league in only his second season] and then you ask "Why hasn't Korver always played this well?" I interpret that question as, "Why hasn't Korver played for a coach who's smarter than everyone else before?". I mean, Bud won COY pretty explicitly because of the scheme he designed around Korver. So it's widely recognized in league circles that he saw something no other coach was capable of.

The obvious corollary here is then that "If Korver can only have star impact in this scheme, is he really a star?" to which I'd respond: if there's a single other player in the league that could replace Korver and replicate what happened this year, then you'd have a point. Otherwise, you're talking about a coach building an offensive scheme around the unique talents of a single player, resulting in huge impact for said player and an elite offensive team. Sounds like a star, no?

And ironically his playoff struggles almost validate him in a way: Korver's been bad, and barely making any impact in the playoffs. Horford has clearly been better. And yet this Horford-centric team just lost to the Wiz without Wall, and limped past a dreadful BKN team. It's pretty clear how desperately the Hawks miss Korver's huge impact.

Re: effectiveness with wrong guys; yeah, you have a good point here. Kyle is one of the strangest players I can imagine in that his value to a team grows almost exponentially the better that team becomes. On a team like the Knicks, he'd be trash as the offensive focus. I think there are close to 50 players who could do more with that roster. But add him to one of the top playoff teams in the West? The dude barely needs 6 shots a game to make his impact, and when he does shoot the ROI is better than any single player in the league. I might venture as far as to say no player could add more value to a pre-existing title contender than Korver.

And really, if our goal is to win a championship, why should we put that much stock into what a guy can do with a middling roster, when he's proven he can provide massive lift to a "very good" roster?

The economic implications of this are fascinating. Theoretically, teams with championship aspirations should be ponying up whatever it takes to nab this guy due to the insane value he can bring alongside other offensive talent. And yet, these are the very teams that couldn't afford him, given that the offensive talent they already have likely commands huge salaries and assets. And the teams that could afford a Korver aren't the teams he'd make the biggest impact on.

Anyway, this is all very fascinating to me. Korver is an extreme case in so many ways- and the implications of this season are potentially pretty huge.

[Dr Spaceman]

I appreciate you not directing that at me, but if I'm being completely honest, I have to admit that my initial reaction to you talking about Korver in near-MVP level terms was highly skeptical. Not that I would have ever suggested you were smoking something as obviously I have tons of respect for your opinion and know you weren't going to step off a cliff without a belief that your analysis of him had real wings. But yeah part of me initially was like--but its Kyle Korver. So I appreciated you forcing me to take a new and harder look at the guy.

Yeah, I've no problem with skepticism, as long as you're open to honest reflection. I understand it's pretty out of left field. Appreciate the kind words.

My question for you in the regular season remains my question now: why are we only seeing this type of impact from Korver this year? Because I believe my first question was whether or not we saw this type of thing from him previously and I believe even you acknowledged he didn't. So when I see a guy suddenly have impact that a respected mind like you rates only behind Lebron(I'm assuming you have #1 in the East, right?) I'm skeptical if we are giving too much credit to him for what the team is doing. Does the return of Al Horford not matter more? Or the fact that you gave nearly 6000 minutes last season to the quartet of Brand, Mack, Scott, and Williams and this year those players only played about 2500 minutes(obviously none by Lou)? Korver was fantastic, but could he be as effective with the wrong guys around him? And if he can't its hard for me to see him in the same elevated terms you do.

To your first question: well, the simple answer is that no one ever thought of creating a Korver-centric scheme before this season. I mean, the guy literally won COY because nobody saw this happening in the slightest. The team so drastically exceeded expectations that media members were falling over themselves to give them accolades. Budz recognized what an absurd weapon he had in Kyle and bled it for all it was worth. So for me, when I see a chain of events like: [Innovative Coach designs Korver-centric scheme -> Korver shocks the world by looking like a low-tier superstar, well above what anyone could've projected in their wildest dreams -> Korver's team wins 17 games in a row en route to a 60 win season, again drastically better than anyone predicted -> Said coach is widely regarded as one of the best in the league in only his second season] and then you ask "Why hasn't Korver always played this well?" I interpret that question as, "Why hasn't Korver played for a coach who's smarter than everyone else before?". I mean, Bud won COY pretty explicitly because of the scheme he designed around Korver. So it's widely recognized in league circles that he saw something no other coach was capable of.

The obvious corollary here is then that "If Korver can only have star impact in this scheme, is he really a star?" to which I'd respond: if there's a single other player in the league that could replace Korver and replicate what happened this year, then you'd have a point. Otherwise, you're talking about a coach building an offensive scheme around the unique talents of a single player, resulting in huge impact for said player and an elite offensive team. Sounds like a star, no?

And ironically his playoff struggles almost validate him in a way: Korver's been bad, and barely making any impact in the playoffs. Horford has clearly been better. And yet this Horford-centric team just lost to the Wiz without Wall, and limped past a dreadful BKN team. It's pretty clear how desperately the Hawks miss Korver's huge impact.

Re: effectiveness with wrong guys; yeah, you have a good point here. Kyle is one of the strangest players I can imagine in that his value to a team grows almost exponentially the better that team becomes. On a team like the Knicks, he'd be trash as the offensive focus. I think there are close to 50 players who could do more with that roster. But add him to one of the top playoff teams in the West? The dude barely needs 6 shots a game to make his impact, and when he does shoot the ROI is better than any single player in the league. I might venture as far as to say no player could add more value to a pre-existing title contender than Korver.

And really, if our goal is to win a championship, why should we put that much stock into what a guy can do with a middling roster, when he's proven he can provide massive lift to a "very good" roster?

The economic implications of this are fascinating. Theoretically, teams with championship aspirations should be ponying up whatever it takes to nab this guy due to the insane value he can bring alongside other offensive talent. And yet, these are the very teams that couldn't afford him, given that the offensive talent they already have likely commands huge salaries and assets. And the teams that could afford a Korver aren't the teams he'd make the biggest impact on.

Anyway, this is all very fascinating to me. Korver is an extreme case in so many ways- and the implications of this season are potentially pretty huge.

[Dr Spaceman]

I appreciate you not directing that at me, but if I'm being completely honest, I have to admit that my initial reaction to you talking about Korver in near-MVP level terms was highly skeptical. Not that I would have ever suggested you were smoking something as obviously I have tons of respect for your opinion and know you weren't going to step off a cliff without a belief that your analysis of him had real wings. But yeah part of me initially was like--but its Kyle Korver. So I appreciated you forcing me to take a new and harder look at the guy.

Yeah, I've no problem with skepticism, as long as you're open to honest reflection. I understand it's pretty out of left field. Appreciate the kind words.

My question for you in the regular season remains my question now: why are we only seeing this type of impact from Korver this year? Because I believe my first question was whether or not we saw this type of thing from him previously and I believe even you acknowledged he didn't. So when I see a guy suddenly have impact that a respected mind like you rates only behind Lebron(I'm assuming you have #1 in the East, right?) I'm skeptical if we are giving too much credit to him for what the team is doing. Does the return of Al Horford not matter more? Or the fact that you gave nearly 6000 minutes last season to the quartet of Brand, Mack, Scott, and Williams and this year those players only played about 2500 minutes(obviously none by Lou)? Korver was fantastic, but could he be as effective with the wrong guys around him? And if he can't its hard for me to see him in the same elevated terms you do.

To your first question: well, the simple answer is that no one ever thought of creating a Korver-centric scheme before this season. I mean, the guy literally won COY because nobody saw this happening in the slightest. The team so drastically exceeded expectations that media members were falling over themselves to give them accolades. Budz recognized what an absurd weapon he had in Kyle and bled it for all it was worth. So for me, when I see a chain of events like: [Innovative Coach designs Korver-centric scheme -> Korver shocks the world by looking like a low-tier superstar, well above what anyone could've projected in their wildest dreams -> Korver's team wins 17 games in a row en route to a 60 win season, again drastically better than anyone predicted -> Said coach is widely regarded as one of the best in the league in only his second season] and then you ask "Why hasn't Korver always played this well?" I interpret that question as, "Why hasn't Korver played for a coach who's smarter than everyone else before?". I mean, Bud won COY pretty explicitly because of the scheme he designed around Korver. So it's widely recognized in league circles that he saw something no other coach was capable of.

The obvious corollary here is then that "If Korver can only have star impact in this scheme, is he really a star?" to which I'd respond: if there's a single other player in the league that could replace Korver and replicate what happened this year, then you'd have a point. Otherwise, you're talking about a coach building an offensive scheme around the unique talents of a single player, resulting in huge impact for said player and an elite offensive team. Sounds like a star, no?

And ironically his playoff struggles almost validate him in a way: Korver's been bad, and barely making any impact in the playoffs. Horford has clearly been better. And yet this Horford-centric team just lost to the Wiz without Wall, and limped past a dreadful BKN team. It's pretty clear how desperately the Hawks miss Korver's huge impact.

Re: effectiveness with wrong guys; yeah, you have a good point here. Kyle is one of the strangest players I can imagine in that his value to a team grows almost exponentially the better that team becomes. On a team like the Knicks, he'd be trash as the offensive focus. I think there are close to 50 players who could do more with that roster. But add him to one of the top playoff teams in the West? The dude barely needs 6 shots a game to make his impact, and when he does shoot the ROI is better than any single player in the league. I might venture as far as to say no player could add more value to a pre-existing title contender than Korver.

And really, if our goal is to win a championship, why should we put that much stock into what a guy can do with a middling roster, when he's proven he can provide massive lift to a "very good" roster?

The economic implications of this are fascinating. Theoretically, teams with championship aspirations should be ponying up whatever it takes to nab this guy due to the insane value he can bring alongside other offensive talent. And yet, these are the very teams that couldn't afford him, given that the offensive talent they already have likely commands huge salaries and assets. And the teams that could afford a Korver aren't the teams he'd make the biggest impact on.

Anyway, this is all very fascinating to me. Korver is an extreme case in so many ways- and the implications of this season are potentially pretty huge.

[LA Bird]

And ironically his playoff struggles almost validate him in a way: Korver's been bad, and barely making any impact in the playoffs. Horford has clearly been better. And yet this Horford-centric team just lost to the Wiz without Wall, and limped past a dreadful BKN team. It's pretty clear how desperately the Hawks miss Korver's huge impact.

It validates his importance to Hawks' regular season success but if Korver's huge impact is not achievable in the playoffs, does his regular season performance still matter? Or do you think Korver is just in a shooting slump right now and that his regular season impact could be replicated in playoffs as well?

I also find it interesting that Korver is looking a lot better in on/off stats this series despite what appears to be an awful series by box score stats.

Hawks vs Nets: On-Off +/-
+34.5 Carroll
+32.9 Millsap
+23.5 Teague
+5.4 Horford
-1.0 Korver

Hawks vs Wizards: On-Off +/-
+17.6 Korver
+9.4 Horford
+0.5 Millsap
-16.4 Teague
-20.7 Carroll

[PaulieWal]

Apparently Bill Simmons is completely done with ESPN and will not appear on any of their platforms any longer. That means no podcasts, columns, or TV appearances until they figure out a contract resolution and he finds new employment. My guess he's going to be out of commission for at least a month or two before he's back on the air(internet).

[Dr Spaceman]

My preview of Hawks/Cavs:

https://rootingforgoliath.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/eastern-conference-finals-preview/

[Dr Spaceman]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/haralabob/status/599412829096116224[/tweet]

I pretty much avoid talking about refereeing but last night was the first time I watched a game live and thought, "Wow, the refs might be actively pushing for a G7."

Maybe I'm naive and this happens often. I don't know, what do you guys think?

[bondom34]

Don't know, and didnybwatch last night. But I thought GSW got some very very friendly calls earlier in the serirs. I believe it was at least game 4 and late in game 3. There wasn't any outrage then, and tbh I get the feelimg GSW has become the new untouchable golden child for the large part of fans and media. I'm sure everyone will disagree though.

[Doctor MJ]

Apparently Bill Simmons is completely done with ESPN and will not appear on any of their platforms any longer. That means no podcasts, columns, or TV appearances until they figure out a contract resolution and he finds new employment. My guess he's going to be out of commission for at least a month or two before he's back on the air(internet).

I wondered about that, and frankly that's the ultimate proof that this is personal.

Simmons basically being barred from covering NBA basketball during the playoffs, man, that's cold.

I've never been a huge Simmons fan, but I think back to him talking about the Vengeance Scale. How bad do people want to come back and destroy someone who wronged them?

Simmons is a guy who quite frankly might have begun the process of fading away already now that 30 for 30 and Grantland are what they are. Now though, he's going to come into his new job breathing fire looking to run circles around ESPN. It's frankly hard to imagine anyone seriously hurting ESPN at this point, but Simmons way well do some very cool things wherever he goes newxt.

[PaulieWal]

Apparently Bill Simmons is completely done with ESPN and will not appear on any of their platforms any longer. That means no podcasts, columns, or TV appearances until they figure out a contract resolution and he finds new employment. My guess he's going to be out of commission for at least a month or two before he's back on the air(internet).

I wondered about that, and frankly that's the ultimate proof that this is personal.

Simmons basically being barred from covering NBA basketball during the playoffs, man, that's cold.

I've never been a huge Simmons fan, but I think back to him talking about the Vengeance Scale. How bad do people want to come back and destroy someone who wronged them?

Simmons is a guy who quite frankly might have begun the process of fading away already now that 30 for 30 and Grantland are what they are. Now though, he's going to come into his new job breathing fire looking to run circles around ESPN. It's frankly hard to imagine anyone seriously hurting ESPN at this point, but Simmons way well do some very cool things wherever he goes newxt.

Yeah, I am very surprised that he isn't going out like Scarface lol and is actually handling like this a professional.

From the article I did read it mentioned that this wasn't a calculated move by ESPN to keep him from covering the NBA playoffs because they actually lose clicks but that's just the way it happened. But then who actually knows?

And you right, ESPN will always be ESPN. They have become "too big to fail" for those who remember that from 08 recession and ESPN doesn't need any saving anyway. They own the sports media industry and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future and beyond. Really though, both ESPN and Simmons will be fine. Simmons' current contract with ESPN is estimated to be around $4-5 mil. He's done extremely well for himself and will get another high paying job with ease.

Simmons as an analyst isn't all that great as you alluded to but he's still better than most and mostly I like him for giving guys like Lowe, Habserstroh, and Kirkberry platforms to present their work. Hopefully he's able to steal some of those from ESPN and I have a feeling he will try.

[therealbig3]

There have been some really interesting posts related to basketball that aren't PC board related in this thread. That's really cool. Here's my contribution:

Girlfriends are expensive.

That is all.

[Dr Spaceman]

I have a dream become one day the greatest point guard.

[Texas Chuck]

I wondered about that, and frankly that's the ultimate proof that this is personal.

Maybe. But I would imagine a big part of it is they simply know they can't trust him and they would look foolish to put him back on air/online only to have him say something they won't like. And I think we all know how hard it would be for Simmons not to speak out of something the network won't like.

I think its simply the safest way to handle it. Obviously for some guys its personal, but overall I wouldn't say that's reason 1 why he's off the air.

[Doctor MJ]

I wondered about that, and frankly that's the ultimate proof that this is personal.

Maybe. But I would imagine a big part of it is they simply know they can't trust him and they would look foolish to put him back on air/online only to have him say something they won't like. And I think we all know how hard it would be for Simmons not to speak out of something the network won't like.

I think its simply the safest way to handle it. Obviously for some guys its personal, but overall I wouldn't say that's reason 1 why he's off the air.

I feel like I'm missing something in your context here. Here's what I see:

It makes total sense that Simmons isn't allowed to work now, the question is why ESPN chose the time and the place to let him go. Understand 3 things:

1. There was absolutely no need to publicly explain why they didn't want to be in the Simmons business.
2. There was absolutely no professional justification for doing things without bothering to talk to him directly.
3. Firing Simmons now is the most damaging time for his brand. He's a basketball guy getting his mike shut off for basketball playoff season.

Now, ESPN can rationalize the 3rd point by saying that it was simply based on what Simmons said - cross the line too many times as of right now - but of course they haven't even claimed that directly, and given that they made it a point to humiliate Simmons with the first 2 points, I don't see why they get the benefit of the doubt on the 3rd.

[PaulieWal]

I wondered about that, and frankly that's the ultimate proof that this is personal.

Maybe. But I would imagine a big part of it is they simply know they can't trust him and they would look foolish to put him back on air/online only to have him say something they won't like. And I think we all know how hard it would be for Simmons not to speak out of something the network won't like.

I think its simply the safest way to handle it. Obviously for some guys its personal, but overall I wouldn't say that's reason 1 why he's off the air.

I feel like I'm missing something in your context here. Here's what I see:

It makes total sense that Simmons isn't allowed to work now, the question is why ESPN chose the time and the place to let him go. Understand 3 things:

1. There was absolutely no need to publicly explain why they didn't want to be in the Simmons business.
2. There was absolutely no professional justification for doing things without bothering to talk to him directly.
3. Firing Simmons now is the most damaging time for his brand. He's a basketball guy getting his mike shut off for basketball playoff season.

Now, ESPN can rationalize the 3rd point by saying that it was simply based on what Simmons said - cross the line too many times as of right now - but of course they haven't even claimed that directly, and given that they made it a point to humiliate Simmons with the first 2 points, I don't see why they get the benefit of the doubt on the 3rd.

Is it possible that once Simmons found out that his contract wasn't going to be renewed in September he decided to get out of there ASAP and not wait until September?

This could also just be his way of asking to get released from the contract or simply negotiate a buyout so he can find new employment and start a different phase of his career.

[Clyde Frazier]

Just took a look at josh smith’s first 4 games and last 3 games in the clippers series:

First 4 games: 31.6% TS + 70 ORTG

Last 3 games: 68.7% TS + 130 ORTG

It's not like i won't give smith his due at all, but that’s just staggering. Shaking my head at the clippers a little more after seeing that.