Around the NBA II

[Captain Ballmer]

Not on that contract, no thanks. Maybe if he gets bought out.

After the Kawhi news.. I'd throw the 2021-22 season for retooling with youth. I'd consider Bev+Rondo+Morris for Wall and draft picks. We gave Houston more than 20+ Million cap relief on 2022-23 and 2023-24. For the upcoming draft Houston has #23 and #24 picks just in front of us by the way.

[MartinToVaught]

Doc: another historic playoff meltdown to add to his unrivaled legacy of postseason failures as a coach
Trez: watched the Lakers' first-round exit from the bench
CP3: choked in the biggest series of his career, has now become the first player to blow four 2-0 playoff series leads in a career
Clippers: had the best season in franchise history without all three of them

Casual fans gave the Clippers so much **** about our playoff failures over the years, but always acted like Doc, CP3 and to a lesser extent Trez were "scapegoats" who didn't deserve any blame. Will anyone start to acknowledge that they were wrong?

[NippySudz]

I'm happy the bucks won. Serves sh-t suns fan coming to our forum talking ****.

I feel for the suns players though, except cp. Screw cp.

Congrats to the bucks.

[og15]

Doc: another historic playoff meltdown to add to his unrivaled legacy of postseason failures as a coach
Trez: watched the Lakers' first-round exit from the bench
CP3: choked in the biggest series of his career, has now become the first player to blow four 2-0 playoff series leads in a career
Clippers: had the best season in franchise history without all three of them

Casual fans gave the Clippers so much **** about our playoff failures over the years, but always acted like Doc, CP3 and to a lesser extent Trez were "scapegoats" who didn't deserve any blame. Will anyone start to acknowledge that they were wrong?

Harrell
Trezz is a role player, who cares about him, he was not a good matchup to play vs Denver, and even more so with his mindset at the time, but that was a coaching decision. Still, the team got to game 7 and the stars still couldn't get it done and failed miserably, there's no need for us to neglect that because playing Trezz too much might have extended the series. There was still opportunity, and they didn't do it, it happens, all those hating fans have had their stars fail too, so they should shut up.

Losing up 2-0
What does the Paul stat actually mean? It's telling us by that Blake and Paul are injury prone, yea, we know that.

2013: Griffin injury
2016: Griffin and Paul injury, both didn't play the 2bd half of game 4 or the last 2 games

Okay, so being injury prone and having an injury prone co-star gives a higher probability of losing a series after going up 2-0, wow, who would have thunk it?

I can understand non Clippers fans quoting these kind of ESPN nonsense no context stats, but any Clippers fans should be embarrassed to be pulling out something like this.

2013, two 56 win teams
2012: 4/7 games, 4 pts or less, 3/7 2 pts or less

Both protect home court, 2-2.
Griffin game 5/6, 16.7 mpg while hobbled and can only take 6 FGA/G and shoots 42% FG. Minutes filled by Odom who is struggling with drugs at the time. His team lost? Wow, what a surprise!

Durant's Thunder in a similar position with Westbrook out lost to the same Memphis team 4-1 losing the final 4 games after they squeaked out a 2 point game 1 victory.

Vs Blazers
Portland series? The one where 3/4 losses didn't even have him (or Griffin)) on the court. Oh, I think the argument herr is that they (well only Paul, not Blake of course) were already choking because they weren't up in game 4 since teams never come back from single digit deficits in the first half.

It's still a bigger man's game
If you want to make the argument, at least make it with substantial stuff, not ESPN trash analysis type of arguments. Paul is small, even for a point guard he's small and he can't impose his will on the game consistently like the bigger guys can, that's just facts, it's not "hating". He certainly can't do it on the defensive end like them even when he tries, and he has to work much harder for everything on offense than a guy who can just shoot over you or bully you can. He can do it once in a while, but there's no amount of effort or guts that will allow him to do what the bigger guys can do in that rregard at the same consistency.

AI tried to sort of do that, he got out of the first round just 4 times in his career, past the 2nd round once and it was when he had an elite defensive and rebounding team against a very weak Eastern Conference where his team was actually the most talented in comparison. In his 22 games played in the run, he shot 35% or under in 10/22 games. His team went to 7 in the 2nd round against another one man team they should have beat in 5-6 games and were a final shot dropping from losing.

The lesson, small guys trying to do what bigger guys to do the same way they do it doesn't work except for in very specific favorable circumstances (and it didn't really "work" in Philly except for that one season where it kinda did).

Life isn't fair, if Paul got to be 6'3 or 6'4 with his same skillet and better health genetics, things could have been different for him, but guess what? Life's not fair, he's a generous 6'0 and has to work with what he has and will always need other guys to pick up more slack for him than a bigger guy would.

[og15]

I'm happy the bucks won. Serves sh-t suns fan coming to our forum talking ****.

I feel for the suns players though, except cp. Screw cp.

Congrats to the bucks.

Giannis is a beast, happy that the slander on him will go away. I didn't my mind this series because neither winner would have made mad. Bucks really have a chance to continue to be a force in the league would be nice to even see them get another one, just saying.

[esqtvd]

Doc: another historic playoff meltdown to add to his unrivaled legacy of postseason failures as a coach
Trez: watched the Lakers' first-round exit from the bench
CP3: choked in the biggest series of his career, has now become the first player to blow four 2-0 playoff series leads in a career
Clippers: had the best season in franchise history without all three of them

Casual fans gave the Clippers so much **** about our playoff failures over the years, but always acted like Doc, CP3 and to a lesser extent Trez were "scapegoats" who didn't deserve any blame. Will anyone start to acknowledge that they were wrong?

Harrell
Trezz is a role player, who cares about him, he was not a good matchup to play vs Denver, and even more so with his mindset at the time, but that was a coaching decision. Still, the team got to game 7 and the stars still couldn't get it done and failed miserably, there's no need for us to neglect that because playing Trezz too much might have extended the series. There was still opportunity, and they didn't do it, it happens, all those hating fans have had their stars fail too, so they should shut up.

Losing up 2-0
What does the Paul stat actually mean? It's telling us by that Blake and Paul are injury prone, yea, we know that.

2013: Griffin injury
2016: Griffin and Paul injury, both didn't play the 2bd half of game 4 or the last 2 games

Okay, so being injury prone and having an injury prone co-star gives a higher probability of losing a series after going up 2-0, wow, who would have thunk it?

I can understand non Clippers fans quoting these kind of ESPN nonsense no context stats, but any Clippers fans should be embarrassed to be pulling out something like this.

2013, two 56 win teams
2012: 4/7 games, 4 pts or less, 3/7 2 pts or less

Both protect home court, 2-2.
Griffin game 5/6, 16.7 mpg while hobbled and can only take 6 FGA/G and shoots 42% FG. Minutes filled by Odom who is struggling with drugs at the time. His team lost? Wow, what a surprise!

Durant's Thunder in a similar position with Westbrook out lost to the same Memphis team 4-1 losing the final 4 games after they squeaked out a 2 point game 1 victory.

Vs Blazers
Portland series? The one where 3/4 losses didn't even have him (or Griffin)) on the court. Oh, I think the argument herr is that they (well only Paul, not Blake of course) were already choking because they weren't up in game 4 since teams never come back from single digit deficits in the first half.

It's still a bigger man's game
If you want to make the argument, at least make it with substantial stuff, not ESPN trash analysis type of arguments. Paul is small, even for a point guard he's small and he can't impose his will on the game consistently like the bigger guys can, that's just facts, it's not "hating". He certainly can't do it on the defensive end like them even when he tries, and he has to work much harder for everything on offense than a guy who can just shoot over you or bully you can. He can do it once in a while, but there's no amount of effort or guts that will allow him to do what the bigger guys can do in that regard at the same consistency.

AI tried to sort of do that, he got out of the first round just 4 times in his career, past the 2nd round once and it was when he had an elite defensive and rebounding team against a very weak Eastern Conference where his team was actually the most talented in comparison. In his 22 games played in the run, he shot 35% or under in 10/22 games. His team went to 7 in the 2nd round against another one man team they should have beat in 5-6 games and were a final shot dropping from losing.

The lesson, small guys trying to do what bigger guys to do the same way they do it doesn't work except for in very specific favorable circumstances (and it didn't really "work" in Philly except for that one season where it kinda did).

Life isn't fair, if Paul got to be 6'3 or 6'4 with his same skillet and better health genetics, things could have been different for him, but guess what? Life's not fair, he's a generous 6'0 and has to work with what he has and will always need other guys to pick up more slack for him than a bigger guy would.

That 6MOY Trezz was a non-factor this year and Zubac struggled in the playoffs indicated the previous coach got more out of them than their present coaches and he was not the problem. Meanwhile at his new job, the best player played on a torn-up knee and their second-best player came up trash and everyone wants him out of town.

All credit to Giannis and also to the Bucks for staying healthy. True props to CP and his kid Suns team, who were predicted not to even make it out of the first round [and who stayed healthy too].

Thank you for some adult conversation. Games are won on the court. Bud isn't a genius and Monty isn't a moron. Giannis scored 50 points and Chris Paul is 6 feet tall and that's the way it is.

[esqtvd]

I'm happy the bucks won. Serves sh-t suns fan coming to our forum talking ****.

I feel for the suns players though, except cp. Screw cp.

Congrats to the bucks.

Giannis is a beast, happy that the slander on him will go away. I didn't my mind this series because neither winner would have made mad. Bucks really have a chance to continue to be a force in the league would be nice to even see them get another one, just saying.

Certainly instead of the Bearded Durants.

[clipperlover]

I'm happy the bucks won. Serves sh-t suns fan coming to our forum talking ****.

I feel for the suns players though, except cp. Screw cp.

Congrats to the bucks.

Giannis is a beast, happy that the slander on him will go away. I didn't my mind this series because neither winner would have made mad. Bucks really have a chance to continue to be a force in the league would be nice to even see them get another one, just saying.

Giannis is not just a beast. He is a likeable guy. Check out his Post Finals Presser:

Watch on YouTube

Then, he goes out through Milwaukee today and does this:

Read on Twitter

[MartinToVaught]

Losing up 2-0
What does the Paul stat actually mean? It's telling us by that Blake and Paul are injury prone, yea, we know that.

2013: Griffin injury
2016: Griffin and Paul injury, both didn't play the 2bd half of game 4 or the last 2 games

2013: The series had already gone from 2-0 to tied when Blake got hurt and Memphis had all the momentum anyway.
2016: Again, the series was already trending in the wrong direction. We had lost Game 3 and were trailing in the third quarter of Game 4 when CP3 and Blake got hurt.

I mean, really. We all watched Lob City, we all suffered through the Doc era. These teams were never particularly resilient in the playoffs. All these injuries did was mask chokejobs that were already in progress before they happened.

It's also unfair to use this stat to throw shade on Blake for being "injury-prone" when he wasn't even on CP3's team for half of his blown 2-0 leads. CP3 is the common denominator, not Blake. In the other two series (2008 vs. Spurs, 2021 vs. Bucks) he and his team were healthy and he still blew it in typical CP3 fashion, so clearly you can't blame it all on injuries.

Just like Doc - at some point, when your teams blow this many leads in the playoffs, and you are the lone common denominator across multiple franchises and eras, the problem is you, not "bad luck" or "injuries" or your teammates or the refs, or any other excuses people want to come up with.

Read on Twitter

[og15]

Losing up 2-0
What does the Paul stat actually mean? It's telling us by that Blake and Paul are injury prone, yea, we know that.

2013: Griffin injury
2016: Griffin and Paul injury, both didn't play the 2bd half of game 4 or the last 2 games

2013: The series had already gone from 2-0 to tied when Blake got hurt and Memphis had all the momentum anyway.

LOL, what did you think was going to happen? 3-0? 3-1? You think the Grizzlies luckily won 56 games? This is the team that in 2015 knocked out Portland 4-1 and were up 2-1 on eventual champs GS? Are we talking about reality or talking about going up 2-0 on a hypothetical team?

The road team winning their home games has all the momentum? Why? How does that work? So the only time the team with HCA isn't choking against a similar strength opponent is if they go up 3-0 (or minimum 3-1)? You realize how that is simply not a defebsible argument, right? I wonder how any team up 2-0 and tied after 4 games ever won

You see how this starts to make little sense upon examination? Basically you are making the argument without realizing it that a team is only not choking with HCA when they have a 3-1 lead at minimum after 4 games. There's a reason game 5 of series' are considered critical in close matchups, and that's because closely matched teams usually find a way to be tied 2-2 after 4, and the team that goes up 3-2 gets the advantage.

2016: Again, the series was already trending in the wrong direction. We had lost Game 3 and were trailing in the third quarter of Game 4 when CP3 and Blake got hurt.

Trending in the wrong direction because a Clippers team who didn't have Blake for most of the season and had him just working up to full capacity in those games (Griffin Game 1-3: 14.3 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 4.7 apg, 2.7 tpg, 37% FG) were up 2-1 instead of 3-0? For you, trending in the wrong direction seems to mean not sweeping.

They lost game 3 by 8 points, they were even with Portland when Paul was on the court. Blake still struggling with explosiveness and his touch was 5/16 with 12 points, it's hard to go up 3-0 as a two star team when one star just came back from a half season long injury and can't play like normal.

In game 4, the Clippers were down 4 points at half time, and down 2 points after the third quarter. They lost the 4th 32-20, Blake only was able to play 1.5 minutes in the 4th, it was a 5 point game when he was taken out. Your argument is that if these two guys had stayed healthy, the Clippers were bound to lose a game that was within two possessions at half time and a 2 point game going into the 4th? Really? Really? Really? Not just that, but that they had already lost the series by then because of the bad "momentum" of being up 2-1 and being down 2 points after 3 quarters. Hmm...

I mean, really. We all watched Lob City, we all suffered through the Doc era. These teams were never particularly resilient in the playoffs. All these injuries did was mask chokejobs that were already in progress before they happened.

Chokejobs that were already in progress = made up narrative but I know it can't be decidedly proven wrong.

They were consistently the 3-5th seed, they had the smallest wings in the West, and poor wings for any possible contender. The bench was weak after 13-14 when it was still terrible at the wing because Dudley was unplayable later in that season. You don't need to choke to lose in the 2nd round or to lose a 4/5 matchup against a team with the same record. That doesn't mean they didn't have choke moments, but their actual chokes were Paul vs OKC game 5, and losing after up 3-1 vs the Rockets.

You're making a bad argument and dying on the hill of the bad argument for the sake of a narrative.

It's also unfair to use this stat to throw shade on Blake for being "injury-prone" when he wasn't even on CP3's team for half of his blown 2-0 leads. CP3 is the common denominator, not Blake. In the other two series (2008 vs. Spurs, 2021 vs. Bucks) he and his team were healthy and he still blew it in typical CP3 fashion, so clearly you can't blame it all on injuries.

Unfair to whom? What is unfair about anything I said? How is any of that throwing shade? Did it or did it not happen? Blake being injury prone is not a debatable topic, it's simply about reality or not. There's a reason Blake at 32 years old is a much lower tier player than Paul at 36 years old, and it's not because of laziness (Blake is a very hard worker). Blake has played in 8 playoffs, he's suffered a series impacting/ending or season ending injury in 4 of them, including three seasons in a row from 15-16 to 18-19 where he averaged 3 games/playoffs. According to you, acknowledging this is unfair and throwing shade? Lol, what?

Blake is injury prone, so is Paul, so is Kyrie, so is Anthony Davis, so is Kawhi, etc, now they are injury prone to different degrees, but not everyone gets LeBron genetics. If you think that's throwing shade, you're denying reality.

The stat is about "most" if half of the "most" a directly related to injuries, then it is very relevant to mention injuries. If we're at two series', we have guys like Tim Duncan (or coach like Pop) whose team did it twice, vs Thunder in 2012 losing final 4 and vs Lakers in 2004 losing final 4. We have Barkley's Suns in back to back seasons vs the Rockets, no injuries were a factor.

The Hornets and Suns lost to teams that were just as good and more experienced. The Hornets series was two teams alternating blowing each other out at home and the veteran Spurs team closing out a Hornets team with multiple first time playoffs guys The Hornets losing was the expected outcome, it would have been considered a massive choke for the Spurs to lose the series, the Hornets were not the favorite outside of having HCA.

Here's what was said going into the playoffs:

New Orleans played the most back-loaded schedule in the league, with 10 games in the final 16 days and 18 in the final month. Eleven of those were on the road, including a six-game Eastern road trip at the end of March and a tough three-games-in-four-nights trip out West the final week.

Here's the expert picks:
http://www.espn.com/nba/playoffs2008/series?series=sasnor

I'm not sure you rightly remember how no one thought the Hornets actually had a chance vs the Spurs. Hindsight is great, but I remember these series' in real time. There's nothing special about those two series losses after up 2-0.

Just like Doc - at some point, when your teams blow this many leads in the playoffs, and you are the lone common denominator across multiple franchises and eras, the problem is you, not "bad luck" or "injuries" or your teammates or the refs, or any other excuses people want to come up with.

4 series' is actually pretty statistically insignificant for something like this, and even more so when the player doesn't actually play for one of the series'. Anyone actually including that has no ability to reason or critically think, hence why ESPN is the place where they would cite something like this with no context.

So now at best you're at 3 series', then you want to argue that Paul should have easily beat a 56 win Memphis team with Blake having no effect on games and a struggling addict starting, even though that same team was able to beat a Thunder team with Durant 4-1? This is including 4 in a row. Paul averaged like 32 ppg on 55% FG in the last two losses, but it was on him for what, not averaging 50 ppg on 55% FG instead of just 32?

[esqtvd]

damn you with your facts and logic lol

[KL2]

Read on Twitter

I’m surprised.

[esqtvd]

"It just doesn’t sound like there’s ever been movement to come together on the same page to do that, and it hasn’t really worked this summer either. I think that’s not something that’s an encouraging sign for him being with the Philadelphia 76ers in the future."


https://www.audacy.com/94wip/sports/76-ers/report-76ers-unable-to-get-in-touch-with-ben-simmons

[TrueLAfan]

Thunder Offer Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, No. 6 To Pistons For No. 1

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/263457/Thunder-Offer-Shai-Gilgeous-Alexander-No-6-To-Pistons-For-No-1

I'd talk with Shai a bit about his feelings about being a Piston but, yeah, I'd make this deal in a nanosecond. There's a gap between 1 and 6. There is not an SGA sized gap, even if you take into account salaries.

[esqtvd]

no news = good news

so far

Read on Twitter

[MartinToVaught]

Read on Twitter

LOL. Have fun in Sacramento, Trez!

[MartinToVaught]

In other former Clipper news:

Read on Twitter

It's crazy how often Shamet gets traded. He has to be on a record pace so far in his career, right?

[og15]

Shamet is one of those guys that is not good enough for teams to fight desperately to keep, but just good enough that someone else will be interested.

[TrueLAfan]

^Yup. The thing about Sham is that, as a young player, you really like the skills he has and hope he develops as a player. But, well, here are the facts:

Shamet 2018-9: 22.8 mpg, 9.1 ppg, 1.7 rpg, 1.5 apg, 0.5 stl, 0.1 blk, 0.6 TO, TS .604
Shamet 2020-1: 23.0 mpg, 9.3 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 1.6 apg, 0.5 stl, 0.2 blk, 0.8 TO, TS .578

He’s exactly the same player he was two years ago. He’s no longer a rookie or a young player. He is what he is—which forces you to assess him for what he does, not what he could do.

--Very good, not great shooter
--Below average scorer
--Below average rebounder
--Average to slightly below ball handler and passer for a SG
--Okay defender

The damning thing is the scoring. Sham can shoot—but what good is a strength you don’t play to? He averages less than 14 points per 36 minutes. There’s a mentality that scorers have; Sham doesn't have it. He's a mid-level rotation player--a spot starter in certain situations or if injuries hit. I imagine he'll have a comfortable existence as a player who plays between 17-23 mpg for the next nine or ten years.

[esqtvd]

can you spell O-L-D

Read on Twitter