Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #17-18, 2012 MIA, 1999 SAS

[VanWest82]

...

I expect you probably spent some time on whatever you said above but if you'd like me to read that and reply please format into something that's readable. Thanks.

Edit: I did get as far as you asserting MJ struggled vs. Sixers and basically everyone else before my eyes gave out. I don't even know how to respond to that. Didn't MJ average 43 vs. Sixers?? Maybe it's best we just leave it here.

[freethedevil]

...

I expect you probably spent some time on whatever you said above but if you'd like me to read that and reply please format into something that's readable. Thanks.

Edit: I did get as far as you asserting MJ struggled vs. Sixers and basically everyone else before my eyes gave out. I don't even know how to respond to that. Didn't MJ average 43 vs. Sixers?? Maybe it's best we just leave it here.

This might shock you, but ineffecintly chucking against a bottom-tier defense on a loaded team is pretty bad for an atg, lmao. Espeically when you're gettin gblown by hawkins over and over on the other end.


I'll take your silence as a concession that your "lebron-ball ruined wade" and "westbrook imploded the thunder" was baseless and nonsensical.

[VanWest82]

...

I expect you probably spent some time on whatever you said above but if you'd like me to read that and reply please format into something that's readable. Thanks.

Edit: I did get as far as you asserting MJ struggled vs. Sixers and basically everyone else before my eyes gave out. I don't even know how to respond to that. Didn't MJ average 43 vs. Sixers?? Maybe it's best we just leave it here.

This might amaze you, but ineffecintly chucking against a bottom-tier defense on a loaded team is pretty bad for an atg, lmao.

Here are his inefficient stats vs. Sixers: 43.0 pts, 6.6 rbs, 7.4 ast, 4.0 stl, 1.2 blk on 61% TS. I think we're done here.

[VanWest82]

I'll take your silence as a concession that your "lebron-ball ruined wade" and "westbrook imploded the thunder" was baseless and nonsensical.

Is this what you said in that wall of bolded black on white?

I never said Lebron ruined Wade. I never said he ruined Bosh either. Both those guys sacrificed so that Lebron could run the show, but as we've seen with many other ball dominant players who've played with Lebron it does diminish their impact on the game. And Russ did implode the Thunder numerous times in the playoffs.

[freethedevil]

I expect you probably spent some time on whatever you said above but if you'd like me to read that and reply please format into something that's readable. Thanks.

Edit: I did get as far as you asserting MJ struggled vs. Sixers and basically everyone else before my eyes gave out. I don't even know how to respond to that. Didn't MJ average 43 vs. Sixers?? Maybe it's best we just leave it here.

This might amaze you, but ineffecintly chucking against a bottom-tier defense on a loaded team is pretty bad for an atg, lmao.

Here are his inefficient stats vs. Sixers: 43.0 pts, 6.6 rbs, 7.4 ast, 4.0 stl, 1.2 blk on 61% TS. I think we're done here.

I was referring to 1991 where he shot league average andrather pathetically padded his creation and his ppg with game 1 during garabage time.

Then the next series, he uses garabge time of game 2 to turn what would have been a 24 ppg series into a 30 ppg series commiting nearly as many breakdowns as plays and getting outcreated by Pippen.

I thnk you're done here yeah.

[VanWest82]

This might amaze you, but ineffecintly chucking against a bottom-tier defense on a loaded team is pretty bad for an atg, lmao.

Here are his inefficient stats vs. Sixers: 43.0 pts, 6.6 rbs, 7.4 ast, 4.0 stl, 1.2 blk on 61% TS. I think we're done here.

I was referring to 1991 where he shot league average andrather pathetically padded his creation and his ppg with game 1 during garabage time.

Then the next series, he uses garabge time of game 2 to turn what would have been a 24 ppg series into a 30 ppg series commiting nearly as many breakdowns as plays and getting outcreated by Pippen.

I thnk you're done here yeah.

Ok you win. Michael Jordan sucked at basketball. Lol.

[freethedevil]

I'll take your silence as a concession that your "lebron-ball ruined wade" and "westbrook imploded the thunder" was baseless and nonsensical.

Is this what you said in that wall of bolded black on white?

I never said Lebron ruined Wade. I never said he ruined Bosh either. Both those guys sacrificed so that Lebron could run the show, but as we've seen with many other ball dominant players who've played with Lebron it does diminish their impact on the game. And Russ did implode the Thunder numerous times in the playoffs.

You said Miami struggled because of lebron-ball relegating wade. only problem is, as I've had to repeat for the fourth time now, the heat swept the celtics by 16 points a game when wade started.


As for westbrook?
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2040906&p=88091709&hilit=westbrook#p88091709

You can stop regurgitating first take talking points now.

[VanWest82]

You said Miami struggled because of lebron-ball relegating wade.

Here is my exact quote:

We can use Bosh's injury as an excuse to lionize Lebron and Wade but the truth is a lot of Bosh's effectiveness as a player was neutered having to play Lebron-ball so I'm not sure it was as big as advertised.

Can you please stop putting words in my mouth now? Thanks.

As for westbrook?
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2040906&p=88091709&hilit=westbrook#p88091709

You can stop regurgitating first take talking points now.

I don't need to regurgitate anything. I watch a lot of basketball. I actually like Westbrook more than most. He was super fun to watch and was an incredible floor raiser in his prime. If anything he's underrated at this point among fans.

That said, he absolutely shot the Thunder out of a bunch of playoff series, including vs. Mavs in 2011, vs. Heat in 2012, vs. Warriors in 2016, Rockets in 2017, Jazz in 2018, Portland in 2019, and even though he didn't take as many shots vs. Lakers last year he still managed to average 4+ turnovers and shoot 47% TS so might as well add that one too. Even the First Take guys can figure this one out. The only one that can't appears to be you. It's almost as bad as running around trying to convince everyone that Michael Jordan wasn't very good at basketball.

[bondom34]

Not really sure where this went off the rails but....gonna go on a hard disagree on a few of those series, just for the recent ones (TBH wasn't following OKC quite as closely in the early years).

2016 both he and Durant shot them outta that one. If someone told anyone that Durant was 3% more efficient in a series, that'd be more a flag that something was up, because he was the hyper efficient scorer.

2017 the Thunder were a plus in his on court time and had nothing when he sat. Their 2nd leading scorer was Andre Roberson (yes that one). Not really sure how that series can be pinned on him in the least.

2018 he was hit and miss (definitely had some miss in there but also single handedly won a game and George was off some), but they shouldn't have ever been favored. 2019 was just bad and they shouldn't have been favored there either. Don't think anyone would argue he was good the last 2 postseasons.

[freethedevil]

You said Miami struggled because of lebron-ball relegating wade.

Here is my exact quote:

We can use Bosh's injury as an excuse to lionize Lebron and Wade but the truth is a lot of Bosh's effectiveness as a player was neutered having to play Lebron-ball so I'm not sure it was as big as advertised.

Can you please stop putting words in my mouth now? Thanks.

Now why don't you explain how the thunder looked like the 91 bulls whenever bosh was healthy if Lebron was supposedly --nuetering him-- lmao. We don't need to lionize lebron ad wade, we only need to look at what the heat did in the playoffs when they had bosh. And what did they do? They dominated. Rendering your "lebron ruined" wade talking point a non-sequitir.

As for westbrook?
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2040906&p=88091709&hilit=westbrook#p88091709

You can stop regurgitating first take talking points now.

I don't need to regurgitate anything. I watch a lot of basketball. I actually like Westbrook more than most. He was super fun to watch and was an incredible floor raiser in his prime. If anything he's underrated at this point among fans.

That said, he absolutely shot the Thunder out of a bunch of playoff series, including vs. Mavs in 2011, vs. Heat in 2012, vs. Warriors in 2016, Rockets in 2017, Jazz in 2018, Portland in 2019, and even though he didn't take as many shots vs. Lakers last year he still managed to average 4+ turnovers and shoot 47% TS so might as well add that one too. Even the First Take guys can figure this one out. The only one that can't appears to be you. It's almost as bad as running around trying to convince everyone that Michael Jordan wasn't very good at basketball.[/quote]
What releveance does 17-19 have on what transpired when the thunder were a contender? Durant shot nearly as badly as westbrook vs the Warriors on similar volume, the difference is westbrook assisted 54% of his team's shots, durant assisted 14% of his team's shots and despite carrying a far lighter load(ball handling, scoring, creation) ended up turning the ball over nearly as much). Duran'ts impact in 17 is ~ to his impact in 16. So why did his splits all suddenly skyrocket?
Because in GSW, Durant wasn't asked to create offense for his teammates(he was a distant third in attempted passes), he was left in single coverage(just lke he was in the second round vs the spurs with pop triple teaming westbrook), and he wasn't asked to handle the ball.

The reason the thunder lost was because without the warriors spacing(post harden), secondary creation(draymond) or elite defense, the thunder needed their superstars to step up. Westbrook did his job seeing his impact and creation skyrocket, Durant on the other hand, did not, seeing his effiency as a scorer plummet, even when westbrook was recieving similar or greater defensive attention.

Implaying that the thunder which ended up having a hgher --floor-- and --cieling-- than the knicks were not as good because westbrook was a walking implosion is a incredibly revisionist account of events.



And no, saying that Jordan was slowed down by elite defenses on a regular basis isn't saying he's very good, its saying he was slowed down by elite defense son a regular basis. That's simply easily verified reality. Just like "the heat struggled against the celtics because lebron relgated bosh" is verifiably false, because they destroyed the celtics when bosh was on the court.

[VanWest82]

I don't buy the "Russ didn't shoot Thunder out of the series because Durant did too (sorta)" argument.

Also, even after I quoted myself to show what I said you're still continuing on saying I said stuff I didn't say. This is such a waste of time.

[freethedevil]

I don't buy the "Russ didn't shoot Thunder out of the series because Durant did too (sorta)" argument.

Also, even after I quoted myself to show what I said you're still continuing on saying I said stuff I didn't say. This is such a waste of time.

The argument is that scoring isn't the only part of the game. lmao

[trex_8063]

That's totally possible. I don't really know how to responsibly handle teams that played reduced regular seasons. Right now they're basically rewarded (because the playoffs are a bigger share of their games, and everyone performs better in the playoffs) which doesn't seem right. It's a question that will definitely be posted for discussion while I'm working on version 2 of the formula.

It sounds harsh but I think you have to discount the entire year to a degree. I'd do the same with the bubble title. Certain teams had obvious advantages/disadvantages due those special circumstances which contributed to success/failure. I'm not trying to take away anything from those teams - all three of those titles were legit - but for the purposes of this exercise, yeah they aren't as valuable.

I totally disagree that those titles weren't as valuable. Circumstances made them "different" seasons from the usual.....but it's a level playing field: those circumstances were present for all 29-30 teams involved in these shortened seasons.

I thus also disagree with "discounting the entire year".
HOWEVER, I will meet you half/quarter of the way by suggesting it might be best to pro-rate the rs SRS to a full 82-game schedule......otherwise these teams in shortened seasons are at a small advantage over the rest of the field due to the playoffs being weighted more heavily [relatively] than they are in other seasons. And a team's playoff SRS is almost always higher than its rs SRS, correct (sansterre)? So that aspect doesn't seem quite fair.

Not sure pro-rating a 66-game schedule to 82 (or a 73-game to 82 for '20) makes a huge difference [pro-rating 50 games to 82 probably changes things more substantially]; but that does strike me as more fair.

[bondom34]

2 random and separate things, but:

1. Re: 2016: Putting that series all on Westbrook is a pretty big reach to me (though this holds for any player getting all the blame in general), and states that first, he was to credit for them being up 3-1 against a more talented team and second, Durant can't ever be blamed. To note, he also pretty much carried them vs Dallas that same season, so if we're really looking at it, they'd be a first round out otherwise, and for games 1-4 scored on nearly identical efficiency while being the primary creator. So yeah putting 2016 on him when if he hadn't carried them past Dallas they'd be done 2 rounds earlier seems pretty iffy as a stance.

To add, as a general and IMO more important point: This is a bit of a fallacy, that only one or two players are "credited" or "blamed" for winning or losing. It's a team based sport and any combination of a number of things can happen to provide value. The 2016 Thunder frankly shouldn't have been up 3-1 based purely off info before the series, but in general this is the sort of thinking that gets people to idolize teams like the Iverson Sixers and credit/blame just one player. Not really a great line of thinking for a team sport.

2. RE: Shortened seasons....

I do wonder how this season will be seen historically. Small sample, guys in and out, teams playing shortened rosters, but it is fair to all. Just gonna be interesting to look back on and possibly super controversial if it pops up in the playoffs.

[VanWest82]

I totally disagree that those titles weren't as valuable. Circumstances made them "different" seasons from the usual.....but it's a level playing field: those circumstances were present for all 29-30 teams involved in these shortened seasons.

I'm not disputing that circumstances were the same for all teams in the lockout seasons but I do think it put certain teams at a disadvantage due to the condensed schedule, and with everything coming together so quickly.

In 99, you also had a bunch of cases where guys weren't ready to play because they didn't think the season was going to happen. There were no training camps, guys were going down all over the place, and everything culminated in a bunch of dumb upsets due to best of 5 and seeding that wasn't a true reflection of the teams. 99 was a **** show right from the start. Here's a nice oral history of the craziness if you have time: https://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/2/19/18228706/lockout-1999-season-san-antonio-spurs-new-york-knicks

2012 was probably a little cleaner as there weren't as many guys caught with their pants down, but it ultimately still favored younger teams imo, or at least made things harder for older teams by comparison.

I don't agree that circumstances were the same for everyone leading into the bubble. Losing home court was obviously a big deal but certain teams seemed to be impacted more than others based on which part of the country was being hit the hardest and how their local government dealt with the initial months of the pandemic.

Heat and Lakers were able to find ways to continue practicing while teams like Bucks and Raptors weren't. The Bucks in particular are a huge what if imo. They were an ATG team that got completely derailed by the pandemic, and my guy Siakam is still messed up from being isolated in his apartment for three straight months. As an aside, it'll be interesting to see the mental health fall out in northern vs. southern communities around the world post pandemic.

But just in a general sense, I think the champions that had to play 82 + playoffs should be rewarded for playing the full season. Simply put, they had to win more games.

[bondom34]

I totally disagree that those titles weren't as valuable. Circumstances made them "different" seasons from the usual.....but it's a level playing field: those circumstances were present for all 29-30 teams involved in these shortened seasons.

I'm not disputing that circumstances were the same for all teams in the lockout seasons but I do think it put certain teams at a disadvantage due to the condensed schedule, and with everything coming together so quickly.

In 99, you also had a bunch of cases where guys weren't ready to play because they didn't think the season was going to happen. There were no training camps, guys were going down all over the place, and everything culminated in a bunch of dumb upsets due to best of 5 and seeding that wasn't a true reflection of the teams. 99 was a **** show right from the start. Here's a nice oral history of the craziness if you have time: https://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/2/19/18228706/lockout-1999-season-san-antonio-spurs-new-york-knicks

2012 was probably a little cleaner as there weren't as many guys caught with their pants down, but it ultimately still favored younger teams imo, or at least made things harder for older teams by comparison.

I don't agree that circumstances were the same for everyone leading into the bubble. Losing home court was obviously a big deal but certain teams seemed to be impacted more than others based on which part of the country was being hit the hardest and how their local government dealt with the initial months of the pandemic.

Heat and Lakers were able to find ways to continue practicing while teams like Bucks and Raptors weren't. The Bucks in particular are a huge what if imo. They were an ATG team that got completely derailed by the pandemic, and my guy Siakam is still messed up from being isolated in his apartment for three straight months. As an aside, it'll be interesting to see the mental health fall out in northern vs. southern communities around the world post pandemic.

But just in a general sense, I think the champions that had to play 82 + playoffs should be rewarded for playing the full season. Simply put, they had to win more games.

Broadly agree on the bubble (which again goes back to how this year will be viewed), but agree with trex it also was fair in that it was agreed on. This year if a player gets COVID during the late season/playoffs could be another one barring vaccinations.

One thing I would pick on is the bolded. If players played poorly b/c they weren't prepared, I'd pin that more on the individuals themselves and not circumstances. They should have at minimum known there was a possibility, being unprepared for games is sort of on them.

[VanWest82]

One thing I would pick on is the bolded. If players played poorly b/c they weren't prepared, I'd pin that more on the individuals themselves and not circumstances. They should have at minimum known there was a possibility, being unprepared for games is sort of on them.

I get that but the fact it happened to so many guys, and seemingly every NBA player from that time has a story about how they weren't exactly ready to go it makes one wonder about things like the messaging from PA, for example. Like, if virtually everyone messed up isn't it possible that it was a little more complicated than just guys were being unprofessional (my word)?

[bondom34]

One thing I would pick on is the bolded. If players played poorly b/c they weren't prepared, I'd pin that more on the individuals themselves and not circumstances. They should have at minimum known there was a possibility, being unprepared for games is sort of on them.

I get that but the fact it happened to so many guys, and seemingly every NBA player from that time has a story about how they weren't exactly ready to go it makes one wonder about things like the messaging from PA, for example. Like, if virtually everyone messed up isn't it possible that it was a little more complicated than just guys were being unprofessional (my word)?

Possible, but then if almost everyone messed up it goes back to being even just at a lowered level. Guess nobody ever really knows, makes those seasons tougher to judge historically. Really in the end just so there's no asterisk talk (know there wasn't here, just in general) trying to judge teams from year to year is nearly impossible anyway so this is a pretty subjective thing.

But I guess if it was sporadic guys coming in unprepared, I'd say its more on them individually and if its really widespread I'd almost say its even for everyone, just everyone kind of came in rusty.

[colts18]

I totally disagree that those titles weren't as valuable. Circumstances made them "different" seasons from the usual.....but it's a level playing field: those circumstances were present for all 29-30 teams involved in these shortened seasons.

I'm not disputing that circumstances were the same for all teams in the lockout seasons but I do think it put certain teams at a disadvantage due to the condensed schedule, and with everything coming together so quickly.

In 99, you also had a bunch of cases where guys weren't ready to play because they didn't think the season was going to happen. There were no training camps, guys were going down all over the place, and everything culminated in a bunch of dumb upsets due to best of 5 and seeding that wasn't a true reflection of the teams. 99 was a **** show right from the start. Here's a nice oral history of the craziness if you have time: https://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/2/19/18228706/lockout-1999-season-san-antonio-spurs-new-york-knicks

2012 was probably a little cleaner as there weren't as many guys caught with their pants down, but it ultimately still favored younger teams imo, or at least made things harder for older teams by comparison.

I don't agree that circumstances were the same for everyone leading into the bubble. Losing home court was obviously a big deal but certain teams seemed to be impacted more than others based on which part of the country was being hit the hardest and how their local government dealt with the initial months of the pandemic.

Heat and Lakers were able to find ways to continue practicing while teams like Bucks and Raptors weren't. The Bucks in particular are a huge what if imo. They were an ATG team that got completely derailed by the pandemic, and my guy Siakam is still messed up from being isolated in his apartment for three straight months. As an aside, it'll be interesting to see the mental health fall out in northern vs. southern communities around the world post pandemic.

But just in a general sense, I think the champions that had to play 82 + playoffs should be rewarded for playing the full season. Simply put, they had to win more games.

The 1999 lockout season deserves a massive asterisk. The time between the signing of the CBA and the season starting was less than a month. Free agency and training camp had to be accelerated in that timeframe. Other factors to consider:

-The schedule was unbalanced that season. Teams played just 6 games vs the other conference. Add that in with a small 50 game sample size, the seeding can get screwy. The #1 seed in the East was tied between 3 teams. The #1 seed in the West was tied between two teams. Overall, there was 5 teams in the Eastern playoffs that had a record tied with another team. In the West, 7 out of the 8 playoff teams had their record tied with another team. That meant a lot of seeding came down to tiebreakers.

-Teams were playing a condensed schedule that meant every team had to play at least 1 back to back to back series of games, often multiple times in a season. Teams would face scenarios where they could play 5 road games in 6 nights. The Sonics had a stretch where they played 6 games in 7 nights. Don't you think that is a massive factor especially considering the reports that a lot of players were out of shape.

-Just how condensed was the schedule?

In 1999, teams played 50 games in 89 nights, average of 1.78 days per game
In the 2012 lockout season, teams played 66 games in 127 nights, 1.92 days per game
In 2019, teams played 82 games in 176 nights, 2.15 days per game

The 99 playoff took 48 days to complete. The 2012 playoffs took 54 days to complete. The 2019 playoffs took 61 days to complete.

-All of that led to the sloppiest season in NBA history. The 99 season was the:

[*]Slowest Pace in NBA history
[*]Worst FG% since the 1960's
[*]Worst FT% since the 1960's
[*]Lowest PPG total since the shot clock was implemented

That sounds like a recipe for a boring ugly season.

[VanWest82]

One thing I would pick on is the bolded. If players played poorly b/c they weren't prepared, I'd pin that more on the individuals themselves and not circumstances. They should have at minimum known there was a possibility, being unprepared for games is sort of on them.

I get that but the fact it happened to so many guys, and seemingly every NBA player from that time has a story about how they weren't exactly ready to go it makes one wonder about things like the messaging from PA, for example. Like, if virtually everyone messed up isn't it possible that it was a little more complicated than just guys were being unprofessional (my word)?

Possible, but then if almost everyone messed up it goes back to being even just at a lowered level. Guess nobody ever really knows, makes those seasons tougher to judge historically. Really in the end just so there's no asterisk talk (know there wasn't here, just in general) trying to judge teams from year to year is nearly impossible anyway so this is a pretty subjective thing.

But I guess if it was sporadic guys coming in unprepared, I'd say its more on them individually and if its really widespread I'd almost say its even for everyone, just everyone kind of came in rusty.

Even if you take that position - that it was still materially even because guys were widespread out of shape - it still means Spurs were the champs of arguably the crappiest season in NBA history, at least in comparison to seasons right before and after. Miami was champs of the 2nd crappiest season depending on how you view the bubble. I don't believe in asterisks as long as it finished and there was an actual champion, but I do believe in knocking these three titles down a peg in comparison to the others because of how those seasons went down.