lemonparade4
- 28 comments
- 0 likes given
- 3 likes received
Bio not provided
@FF_pickups Well, it looks like CP got 67% more ass. I applaud.
@FF_pickups Hey man, I think there are some different dead horses to beat over there. Seriously.
@crystakke Or the '03-'04 Lakers. I stand corrected (see post below)
For clarification, it wasn't the 2004-2005 Lakers that came back down 2-0 (obviously, since the Spurs won the championship in '05). It must have been the '05-'06 Lakers.
@ElMexiThunder @bmuelle21 I think the Suns make it impossible for other GMs to accurately gauge talent - well, really, it's Nash's fault for making everyone so good. Who would have thought Stoudemire would suck so much without Nash?
@ThunderFromDownUnder @FF_pickups Right - 60 fouls * 2 FTs per foul * 50% = 60 points. Jack.
@FF_pickups I like this. Bring on the 2-1 Spurs' rebounding advantage.
@LPCes99 @jamisonjohn @FF_pickups Kind of like he played 1 on 5 in the '07 finals, right?
@shiki @jamisonjohn @FF_pickups And I bet Heat fans had the same arguments when they played Dallas.
@f5alcon @FF_pickups I've always been skeptical of those percentages. I mean, they count the 1-8 and 2-7 match ups from the first round, and they seem more like results than causes...
@FF_pickups @TimmysBottom But I thought the refs were just handing us the series? Why would it not be a sweep?
@alvarex It's similar to what happened with the Knicks when the Heat kept denying Melo the entry pass. Hope for your sake Brooks figures it out faster than Woodson did.
@Legendary_dork Chill out, buddy. The Thunder did play great D - nobody is denying that. When watching the Clips series, I kept noticing that when the Spurs were struggling, it was for no other reason than they were just missing open shots, but they were getting all of the shots they wanted. Last night was different - OKC was in all the passing lanes, getting steals, getting strips at the right place, etc. It was a great defensive performance for a non-Eastern Conference team.
That being said, you have to stop with the "Well, if OKC had just made one more three!" stuff. You can't just arbitrarily add points to the score and then get mad because nobody is recognizing how "lucky" the Spurs were to win. They were up by 10 with like a minute and a half left, and the lead was only 3 after Harden hit a meaningless three at the buzzer - hardly a "lucky" win.
@Legendary_dork I think what we have here is an acute case of confirmation bias. . . The Thunder can't lose! There must have been a referee conspiracy! Nevermind that Joey Crawford once tossed Tim Duncan out of a game for LAUGHING ON THE BENCH - that guy is OBVIOUSLY a huge Spurs homer.
On the other hand, I like your resilient optimism regarding OKC's chances to win. It's definitely true that adding 4 points to OKC's score would have put them ahead - can't argue with that!
@Old Man Game @courtsense Really? You're going to accuse the guy who tossed TD out of a game for LAUGHING ON THE BENCH of having a pro-Spurs bias? Give me a break.
@aise0603 @FREE_COLE To be fair, there are opinions, and then there are informed opinions...
@aise0603 Have you even watched any Spurs games? I mean, there haven't been that many in the postseason, but still. You can't get much closer to the rim than Lob City, and that didn't work out too well for them, did it? And no, "Clippers suck" is not an adequate response to this. Your contention was that the Spurs can't keep people away from the rim, and whether the Clips are good or bad as a team is irrelevant. They DO happen to be good at killing it in the paint, except when they play the Spurs.
@aise0603 @ironm8 I'm still trying to wrap my head around this - "small lineup" simply means that Harden comes in and either Ibaka and Perk go out, right? If so, why wouldn't the Spurs just counter by inserting Ginobili and taking out Diaw or Duncan? Durant's the same height at the 4 as he is at the 3 (lol if he isn't . . . somehow), so why wouldn't Leonard be guarding him at both spots?
@aise0603 I'm not so sure about this characterization. Look at the stat comparisons from this season (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=hardeja01&y1=2012&p2=ginobma01&y2=2012&p3=westbru01&y3=2012&p4=parketo01&y4=2012) Ginobili has a better numbers than Harden in nearly every single (per 36 minute) category, and while most are fairly close, he's way ahead in assists. And look at the Parker v. Westbrook stats - Westbrook scores about 4 more points per 36, but Parker dishes about 3 more assists per 36, so they're basically accounting for the same scoring amount. Westbrook has a better 3P%, but Parker has a better overall %. It's closer than you think. I agree with you on the KD > anybody and Duncan > Perk characterizations, but you left out Diaw and Bonner for consideration with Ibaka. I doubt he's better than them offensively when he's guarding 20 feet from the basket, and he's certainly not a points man himself. Ibaka's effectiveness will really depend on who the Spurs have in at the time.
Lastly, just for discussion, take a look at the March 16 box score (the one that gives me the most hope for the Spurs) - http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=320316025. 1) Manu didn't even play. 2) Blair put up 22 points. 3) OKC's big three combined for 80 (12 more than their combined season averages), and yet 4) The spurs had five guys in double figures and won handily. And the final score doesn't even reflect that the Spurs were up 27 in the first half and 20 late in the 3rd. OKC made a late run, but I'll take that game result any day.
Basically, I think Ironm8 has it correct - it's much more complicated than just matching up individual positions. 12 different players led the Spurs in scoring in a game this year, which is just ridiculous. 8 guys averaged more than nine points a game for the season (and a ninth guy averaged 8.9) - also ridiculous. At any given time we have three players on the court who knock down 3s at better than 40%. The Thunder DO have the talent to expose us in certain ways - I'm not denying that - but it's not going to be by outplaying us one-on-one, because we don't play that game.