Playoffs thread

[Crazysauce]

Bloop, exactly how i feel. In fact i was going to say the same thing about the olympics. Thats what this feels like. I hate it.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Bloop, While I generally fall into your camp as it relates to Durant and Golden State, let me clear up one of your prior statements. Jordan and Stern did not save the NBA. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird did, with an assist from Julius Erving. Jordan then took the torch from those guys.

Even though the examples aren't the same. GS is bringing up feelings I had in the 90s finals. I remember asking myself I was even watching when it seemed like a foregone conclusion that the Bulls were going to win. That feeling is coming back, I just wish I saw a little more heart from Cleveland in this final. Abe is right that we shouldn't be lamenting yet, but it does similar similar to the 90s,

Doper -- I grew up in Chicago and was a Bulls fan. I never thought the Bulls were sure-fire champion in any of the Jordan years. The Bulls always had tough challengers, including initially the Pistons with I. Thomas, Lambeer, Dumars, etc. After that it was Jazz with Stockton and Malone, the Suns with Barkley, Marley and KJ, the Rockets with Hakeem and Drexler, and the Knicks with Ewing, Starks, etc. The Cavs and Hawks were also very good teams eight elite players. Yes, the Bulls were the team to beat those years after knocking off the Pistons on route to their first championship, but it was nothing like the current Warriors with Durant who have no viable challengers who could realistically stop them from winning a championship.

I only consider the Pistons and Suns super good among that group. The Pistons only one season, in 1991. Even though they only won 50 games and were clearly in decline... they were the two-time defending champs. Chicago swept them with ease in the ECF as Joe Dumars shot 25% and Isiah Thomas shot 27%. WHAT???

The Suns in 1993 were legit. The move to get Barkley worked out great. And if it wasn't for Kevin Johnson shitting the bed in the first two games of the Finals... that's the one year I think the Bulls were very susceptible.

The Jazz? Meh. Were those even the best Jazz teams? Stockton/Malone/Hornacek were in their mid 30s by then. Howard Eisley was playing 1/3 of the game in the 1998 Finals. Yuck.

Here's another way to look at it... did any of those teams sans Detroit win a title? In the 1980s, you had the 76ers, Celtics, Pistons, Lakers all beating each other up... but also winning titles. Hence, each was a legit title contender.

The Cavs? Blazers? Hawks? Knicks? Pacers? Meh.



[Note: Although I did dig those Pacers teams... probably because of Bird's impact.]

[thedoper]

Bloop, While I generally fall into your camp as it relates to Durant and Golden State, let me clear up one of your prior statements. Jordan and Stern did not save the NBA. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird did, with an assist from Julius Erving. Jordan then took the torch from those guys.

Even though the examples aren't the same. GS is bringing up feelings I had in the 90s finals. I remember asking myself I was even watching when it seemed like a foregone conclusion that the Bulls were going to win. That feeling is coming back, I just wish I saw a little more heart from Cleveland in this final. Abe is right that we shouldn't be lamenting yet, but it does similar similar to the 90s,

Doper -- I grew up in Chicago and was a Bulls fan. I never thought the Bulls were sure-fire champion in any of the Jordan years. The Bulls always had tough challengers, including initially the Pistons with I. Thomas, Lambeer, Dumars, etc. After that it was Jazz with Stockton and Malone, the Suns with Barkley, Marley and KJ, the Rockets with Hakeem and Drexler, and the Knicks with Ewing, Starks, etc. The Cavs and Hawks were also very good teams eight elite players. Yes, the Bulls were the team to beat those years after knocking off the Pistons on route to their first championship, but it was nothing like the current Warriors with Durant who have no viable challengers who could realistically stop them from winning a championship.

I only consider the Pistons and Suns super good among that group. The Pistons only one season, in 1991. Even though they only won 50 games and were clearly in decline... they were the two-time defending champs. Chicago swept them with ease in the ECF as Joe Dumars shot 25% and Isiah Thomas shot 27%. WHAT???

The Suns in 1993 were legit. The move to get Barkley worked out great. And if it wasn't for Kevin Johnson shitting the bed in the first two games of the Finals... that's the one year I think the Bulls were very susceptible.

The Jazz? Meh. Were those even the best Jazz teams? Stockton/Malone/Hornacek were in their mid 30s by then. Howard Eisley was playing 1/3 of the game in the 1998 Finals. Yuck.

Here's another way to look at it... did any of those teams sans Detroit win a title? In the 1980s, you had the 76ers, Celtics, Pistons, Lakers all beating each other up... but also winning titles. Hence, each was a legit title contender.

The Cavs? Blazers? Hawks? Knicks? Pacers? Meh.



[Note: Although I did dig those Pacers teams... probably because of Bird's impact.]

There were good teams in that era but this was all gut for me. I just never expected the Bulls to lose even if their opponent was legit. For instance, I never remember them losing a home game during their championship runs. Maybe they did but it always seemed like games at the United Center were a formality.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

The issue boils down to simple math. With only 5 players per team allowed on the court playing both offense and defense, the strength or weakness of any given player is far more influential than in any other team sport. It's probably only rivaled by QBs in the NFL, but they can only play on one side of the ball. The same goes for elite #1 pitchers, but not only do they play on one side of the ball (there are no Babe Ruth level hitters pitching anymore), they only play every 5 games or so.

A two-way monster like Leonard or LeBron or Hakeem or Jordan just have a massive influence on the game.

So once an NBA team locks in three or four really, really, really good players, they are going to be very competitive as long as those guys stay healthy. You basically only need to surround them with replacement-level guys and some smart vets to stay good.

[BloopOracle]

https://www.si.com/nba/2017/06/05/

A beautifully written open letter to Kevin Durant

[Monster]

The issue boils down to simple math. With only 5 players per team allowed on the court playing both offense and defense, the strength or weakness of any given player is far more influential than in any other team sport. It's probably only rivaled by QBs in the NFL, but they can only play on one side of the ball. The same goes for elite #1 pitchers, but not only do they play on one side of the ball (there are no Babe Ruth level hitters pitching anymore), they only play every 5 games or so.

A two-way monster like Leonard or LeBron or Hakeem or Jordan just have a massive influence on the game.

So once an NBA team locks in three or four really, really, really good players, they are going to be very competitive as long as those guys stay healthy. You basically only need to surround them with replacement-level guys and some smart vets to stay good.

All that's true. It's worth noting you have to have a good coach to make all that work. You can't just have a guy because another good team with pretty good players with a top level coach can beat a more talented team if the coach isn't good enough.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

The issue boils down to simple math. With only 5 players per team allowed on the court playing both offense and defense, the strength or weakness of any given player is far more influential than in any other team sport. It's probably only rivaled by QBs in the NFL, but they can only play on one side of the ball. The same goes for elite #1 pitchers, but not only do they play on one side of the ball (there are no Babe Ruth level hitters pitching anymore), they only play every 5 games or so.

A two-way monster like Leonard or LeBron or Hakeem or Jordan just have a massive influence on the game.

So once an NBA team locks in three or four really, really, really good players, they are going to be very competitive as long as those guys stay healthy. You basically only need to surround them with replacement-level guys and some smart vets to stay good.

All that's true. It's worth noting you have to have a good coach to make all that work. You can't just have a guy because another good team with pretty good players with a top level coach can beat a more talented team if the coach isn't good enough.

Not so sure. I will take a super talented team with a mediocre coach over a solid team with a great coach. Hell, look at the Warriors without Kerr. His presence, or lack thereof, doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

I do think great coaches can lift mediocre talent into playing above their weight. But ultimately talent wins in the NBA. Especially veteran talent.

[AbeVigodaLive]

The issue boils down to simple math. With only 5 players per team allowed on the court playing both offense and defense, the strength or weakness of any given player is far more influential than in any other team sport. It's probably only rivaled by QBs in the NFL, but they can only play on one side of the ball. The same goes for elite #1 pitchers, but not only do they play on one side of the ball (there are no Babe Ruth level hitters pitching anymore), they only play every 5 games or so.

A two-way monster like Leonard or LeBron or Hakeem or Jordan just have a massive influence on the game.

So once an NBA team locks in three or four really, really, really good players, they are going to be very competitive as long as those guys stay healthy. You basically only need to surround them with replacement-level guys and some smart vets to stay good.

All that's true. It's worth noting you have to have a good coach to make all that work. You can't just have a guy because another good team with pretty good players with a top level coach can beat a more talented team if the coach isn't good enough.

Not so sure. I will take a super talented team with a mediocre coach over a solid team with a great coach. Hell, look at the Warriors without Kerr. His presence, or lack thereof, doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

I do think great coaches can lift mediocre talent into playing above their weight. But ultimately talent wins in the NBA. Especially veteran talent.

Tyronn Lue has an NBA title. KC Jones has multiple NBA titles.

Players >>>>>>> coaching.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

The issue boils down to simple math. With only 5 players per team allowed on the court playing both offense and defense, the strength or weakness of any given player is far more influential than in any other team sport. It's probably only rivaled by QBs in the NFL, but they can only play on one side of the ball. The same goes for elite #1 pitchers, but not only do they play on one side of the ball (there are no Babe Ruth level hitters pitching anymore), they only play every 5 games or so.

A two-way monster like Leonard or LeBron or Hakeem or Jordan just have a massive influence on the game.

So once an NBA team locks in three or four really, really, really good players, they are going to be very competitive as long as those guys stay healthy. You basically only need to surround them with replacement-level guys and some smart vets to stay good.

All that's true. It's worth noting you have to have a good coach to make all that work. You can't just have a guy because another good team with pretty good players with a top level coach can beat a more talented team if the coach isn't good enough.

Not so sure. I will take a super talented team with a mediocre coach over a solid team with a great coach. Hell, look at the Warriors without Kerr. His presence, or lack thereof, doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

I do think great coaches can lift mediocre talent into playing above their weight. But ultimately talent wins in the NBA. Especially veteran talent.

Tyronn Lue has an NBA title. KC Jones has multiple NBA titles.

Players >>>>>>> coaching.

Right, and I think in both of those cases it was about the coaches' relationship with the star (Bird and LeBron respectively).

Once you have a group of veteran all-stars and a clear-cut leader (e.g. Bird, Magic, Jordan, LeBron, etc.), then I think what is required is that said player respects their head coach. That in turn ensures that the top player and head coach form a united front. Everyone else falls in line....Xs and Os take a back seat....

[Monster]

The issue boils down to simple math. With only 5 players per team allowed on the court playing both offense and defense, the strength or weakness of any given player is far more influential than in any other team sport. It's probably only rivaled by QBs in the NFL, but they can only play on one side of the ball. The same goes for elite #1 pitchers, but not only do they play on one side of the ball (there are no Babe Ruth level hitters pitching anymore), they only play every 5 games or so.

A two-way monster like Leonard or LeBron or Hakeem or Jordan just have a massive influence on the game.

So once an NBA team locks in three or four really, really, really good players, they are going to be very competitive as long as those guys stay healthy. You basically only need to surround them with replacement-level guys and some smart vets to stay good.

All that's true. It's worth noting you have to have a good coach to make all that work. You can't just have a guy because another good team with pretty good players with a top level coach can beat a more talented team if the coach isn't good enough.

Not so sure. I will take a super talented team with a mediocre coach over a solid team with a great coach. Hell, look at the Warriors without Kerr. His presence, or lack thereof, doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

I do think great coaches can lift mediocre talent into playing above their weight. But ultimately talent wins in the NBA. Especially veteran talent.

Tyronn Lue has an NBA title. KC Jones has multiple NBA titles.

Players >>>>>>> coaching.

Right, and I think in both of those cases it was about the coaches' relationship with the star (Bird and LeBron respectively).

Once you have a group of veteran all-stars and a clear-cut leader (e.g. Bird, Magic, Jordan, LeBron, etc.), then I think what is required is that said player respects their head coach. That in turn ensures that the top player and head coach form a united front. Everyone else falls in line....Xs and Os take a back seat....

Absolutely the players are more important. I just think you need to have a guy/s put it together. Sure you can have a decent HC as long as he falls in line but it's still a piece of the puzzle. If you want to have legit long term success you can't have just a mediocre coach. Kerr is away from the team sure but he still has influence and Mike Brown isn't some guy that hasn't done anything. He might not be much better than mediocre but at least he has been there before plus Ron Adams is considered one of the best assistants in the game. That stuff matters. GS is a top organization it's not JUST the players. The top organizations tend to get some pretty good players too and tend to find good coaches as well.