Game 72: MEM @ GSW

[Darknemo2000]

Going back to my strategic concern, it was amazing to see Ja having been forced to play a slow half-court offence like in our Big-4 golden times. It is certainly a great idea as it contributes to JV`s and Kyle`s performance. Ja has been ineffective though. Oh, and Clarke has been mentally destroyed, but he has no fans here, unlike JV, so who would care.

Slow half-court is not a problem for JAa- his inability of shooting from distance is the problem.

[Whole Truth]

I thought JJJ was great in the 1st quarter aside from the fouls which is what sent him to the bench early in the game. Later on he was too up in down in a game we needed excellence from him. I don't know what the heck happened to Clarke. Feels like he was better last year. I absolutely loved the kid last year.

And yeah Ja not having a consistent 3pt shot was killer. They were daring him to shoot wide open 3's and he was missing. They need to respect his shot in order to not just clog the paint and render him inefficient.

3J looked like a player that played only 11 games this season but he's definitely looking better by the game.

The couple times he found himself guarding Curry.. he managed to poke the ball away. Therein lies his upside.. Imagine your 3&D C can stay in front of/potentially guard the best scoring PG in the league. He just needs to stop biting, leaving his feet in the post & get better defensive positioning.

He's a potential 3 level scorer.. 3 ball, post & off the dribble

IMO all the tools are there for 3J to be the best 2 way big man in the league, he just needs to put it all together. He's 21, which is why I'm reserved on ESVL's idea of trading him. He's maybe played 1 full season of his 3yrs in the league if you factor the injuries... 1 full season,,, he's raw at 21,,, big men generally take longer to put it together.

I could see the temptation & justification in trading him but it's definitely a decision that could come back to bite Memphis down the road.

Would love some of Dillon's intensity to rub off on him though. Don't think he's playing with enough heart/fight/focus. His game is too methodical.

[Whole Truth]

I have a question..

Grizz 9th seed have a 38-34 record, Spurs 10th seed a 33-39 record. One team is 4 games over 500, one team is 6 games under 500.

What happens draft wise if Memphis in a worst case scenario lose the playin game vs Spurs & get ousted from the playoffs ?.

Do Spurs get both playoffs & the better pick or do they swap draft positions with a Memphis lost (same division, which they should rightfully do if Memphis get upset in a 1 game match against an experienced roster & coach.

Or is Memphis going to get ****, lose draft position & get a worse draft slot than the team that beat them for a playoff spot?.

Other than getting their preferred teams into the playoffs & generating revenue.. this **** is (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

[VCfor3]

I have a question..

Grizz 9th seed have a 38-34 record, Spurs 10th seed a 33-39 record. One team is 4 games over 500, one team is 6 games under 500.

What happens draft wise if Memphis in a worst case scenario lose the playin game vs Spurs & get ousted from the playoffs ?.

Do Spurs get both playoffs & the better pick or do they swap draft positions with a Memphis lost (same division, which they should rightfully do if Memphis get upset in a 1 game match against an experienced roster & coach.

Or is Memphis going to get ****, lose draft position & get a worse draft slot than the team that beat them for a playoff spot?.

Other than getting their preferred teams into the playoffs & generating revenue.. this **** is (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

My understanding is that Memphis would get the better pick in that scenario assuming the Spurs win that next play-in game to get the 8th seed. If the Spurs beat us but lose the next play-in game then they'd have the better pick since neither team made the playoffs.

Basically once the playoffs are set I think that all the non-playoff teams are ranked by their record and that is the order. So if say the Lakers lose twice then they'd get pick #14 instead of what they'd otherwise get. I have no idea how the picks for the teams in the playoffs work though. That may be by record as well but I haven't seen anything on it.

[Whole Truth]

My understanding is that Memphis would get the better pick in that scenario assuming the Spurs win that next play-in game to get the 8th seed. If the Spurs beat us but lose the next play-in game then they'd have the better pick since neither team made the playoffs.

Basically once the playoffs are set I think that all the non-playoff teams are ranked by their record and that is the order. So if say the Lakers lose twice then they'd get pick #14 instead of what they'd otherwise get. I have no idea how the picks for the teams in the playoffs work though. That may be by record as well but I haven't seen anything on it.

Both 7 & 8 seeds in the East, Boston & Washington have a better record than the Spurs/Charlotte but worse record than Memphis in the weaker division. It guarantees the West gets the worst pick in the play in scenario despite who with a losing record might benefit

Both 10th seeds are 33-39.

So in a hypothetical where both 10th seeds make it in, logic dictates that the worse record gets the better pick but in the stronger West if the more experienced Spurs beat Memphis to knock them out of the play in & Charlotte in the Weaker division manage to knock out their weaker 7th seed with a worse record than the 9th seed in the West.. A team 5 games under Memphis get playoffs, while the West/Memphis gets rewarded with the worst pick of all teams involved in the play in after enduring such a season, punished for putting up a winning record...

Memphis now having to beat the better experienced teams in the West get slapped for putting together a good season by a team that record wise, shouldn't be in the mix & end up with the weakest pick as a result of it.

All the teams in the East except the 7th seed have losing records & get rewarded both ways for it, while a team that put together a better season than their 7th seed get slapped both ways for it, if the young inexperience Memphis squad can't beat these stronger vet teams in the West in a one off.

My solution is, the better records in the West, shouldn't be separate of the weaker teams in the East for playoffs & draft position. The teams that had losing season's shouldn't get rewarded for it with either playoffs or better pick type scenario's.

7th in the West should play 10th in the East
8th in the West should play 9th in the East
9th in the West who have a better record than the Easts 7th seed, play 8th in the East
10th in the West should play 7th in the East

Which would justify their current W/L records. The teams that earned that 7th seed, shouldn't have to play the 8th seed for it.. That's just stupid. They lose to the 10th seed in a one off, they then need to play for the 8th seed against another weaker team than they are otherwise currently set to face. So now if they lose both times to teams with worse records, it justifies losing their playoff spot, apposed to losing to a team that is sitting a playoff spot just under them. While a team 6 games under 500 reap the benefit of 2 good games or end up with the best draft pick of the scenario. That's just punishing the team that earned the 7th seed.

If the better teams in the West win out over the 8th & or the 7th seed in the East because it's a stronger division, they make the playoffs in the weaker Eastern division so that teams with losing records don't get the best of both worlds of opportunity without out right earning it.

[Whole Truth]

If the league wants to reward teams with a losing record because they can manipulate their preference & revenue, they should give the teams that earned their record opportunity for a better pick if things don't go their way.

A losing team shouldn't reap the benefit of 2 good games, while a winning team get no benefit for 2 bad ones..

[bobobolas10]

I have a question..

Grizz 9th seed have a 38-34 record, Spurs 10th seed a 33-39 record. One team is 4 games over 500, one team is 6 games under 500.

What happens draft wise if Memphis in a worst case scenario lose the playin game vs Spurs & get ousted from the playoffs ?.

Do Spurs get both playoffs & the better pick or do they swap draft positions with a Memphis lost (same division, which they should rightfully do if Memphis get upset in a 1 game match against an experienced roster & coach.

Or is Memphis going to get ****, lose draft position & get a worse draft slot than the team that beat them for a playoff spot?.

Other than getting their preferred teams into the playoffs & generating revenue.. this **** is (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

If spurs wins the play in, they could even get ahead lakers/GSW, which is a bigger same. That play-in tournament makes no sense. It is getting even worst.

[Whole Truth]

I have a question..

Grizz 9th seed have a 38-34 record, Spurs 10th seed a 33-39 record. One team is 4 games over 500, one team is 6 games under 500.

What happens draft wise if Memphis in a worst case scenario lose the playin game vs Spurs & get ousted from the playoffs ?.

Do Spurs get both playoffs & the better pick or do they swap draft positions with a Memphis lost (same division, which they should rightfully do if Memphis get upset in a 1 game match against an experienced roster & coach.

Or is Memphis going to get ****, lose draft position & get a worse draft slot than the team that beat them for a playoff spot?.

Other than getting their preferred teams into the playoffs & generating revenue.. this **** is (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

If spurs wins the play in, they could even get ahead lakers/GSW, which is a bigger same. That play-in tournament makes no sense. It is getting even worst.

While a possibility that's less likely because those 2 teams would get a far more favorable whistle than Memphis due to ratings. See play in game last year where Lilliard/Portland were +22 on the FT line to narrowly beat Memphis in the 1st of 2. When Memphis were making their 4th Q run to pull away, t was a succession of bad calls that turned the Q & game. Not unlike Brooks getting ejected for pulling Memphis back against GS for a 2pt lead.. light contact or not, make no mistake his ejection was going to happen at the direction the game was heading. Dillon, Memphis version of Green picked up cheap fouls while Green avoided picking up 2 clear techs among getting away with several other clear fouls... Officials turned a blind eye on Green to help GS contain Memphis paint size advantage, while they didn't miss Dillon's soft calls because he was the one containing their Golden boy/ticket.

The play in benefit, where the idea makes any sense, is that the TV contracts get their preferred teams/players & boost in ratings/revenue so teams that aren't rating draws like Memphis with a rookie as their best known player, won't get the same shake that GS/Lakers would to ensure they make it, not that it's a sure thing but a leg up.. GS/Memphis last game drew the ratings mostly because GS had playoff implications.. ESPN worked hard last year to boost Zion & NO's into Memphis slot & almost did.. Ja won ROY & it was like he/Memphis weren't even in the play in picture cause ZION is GOAT

Play in, is a method of control for TV contracts/ratings. So if a team like Memphis get the butt end of it, they should at least be rewarded in the draft for being 5 games over an experienced team that gets a game to undo their entire season & reap the benefit of a clear losing record. I mean Spurs are sitting just outside the top 10 & might make the playoffs if they could put 2 good games together while Memphis had to endure 40 games in 60 nights for their position, where I'd argue fatigue was the only reason they had to win out vs GS for the 8th seed..

How bad is it... give Minnesota who are bottom West 1 game to knock a middling team off & they just might. While their downside for losing is being rewarded with the #1 pick.. lol it's just dumb.

I'd prefer Grizz losing out because GS won that last game to make them 9th seed apposed to the 11th seed having that opportunity.. Where if Spurs lose, they're 11th pick.... They got nothing to lose!!!... It's playoffs or 11th pick... I know NBA were hoping that would've been Zion, why they went from 9 seed play in to 10, lol.

Memphis played 40 games in 60 nights only to be potentially ousted by a game, with the benefit of a worse pick than all the teams involved in the play in because the East is a weaker division. I could mention GS & Lakers but I know the league will do their best to keep them in the playoff picture/TV ratings apposed to Memphis.

Which is the purpose of the play in, ratings & a boost in revenue.

I want to know what's in it for Memphis ?. better give us some lotto luck for being a young team that put together a pretty damn good season.. only to be ousted by ratings & revenue.

[Whole Truth]

My solution would be to do away with East/West divisions if they like the play in scenario.

It would put Boston 7th seed in the East, 10th seed in the playin, balance out the benefit/opportunity bad teams get.. Where the 9th & 10th seed, if they lose, aren't rewarded with a near top 10 pick.

[svart]

Good game guys, it was fun to watch even if we lost.

I love Ja, and you have a nice young team, the defense was on the spot with us, hope you'll keep it up.

Will root for you in the Jazz series.

[VCfor3]

Good game guys, it was fun to watch even if we lost.

I love Ja, and you have a nice young team, the defense was on the spot with us, hope you'll keep it up.

Will root for you in the Jazz series.

Good game yourself! Curry is such a stud. When Klay comes back to take pressure off of him plus whatever you guys do with the MIN pick and Wiseman, I think you guys will be contending again next year.