Log in:  

Register

NBA / NCAA Basketball

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

15 Jun 2017 12:02

Why the Cavaliers were doomed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32zgkcybr-A
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,980
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

Re: Re:

15 Jun 2017 15:52

jmdirt wrote:
movingtarget wrote:
jmdirt wrote:Why Cle lost- bench, Love
Why Cle was even close- Smith
Why GS won- bench

A lot is being made of KD being the reason that GS won, but in a series like this, the starters tend to cancel each other out, and its the roll players/bench that make the difference. In this case, the Cle starters beat the GS starters, and it was the bench, Igu, who won the game.

LJ 41, KD 39
KI 26, SC 34
JS 25, KT 11
TT 15, DG 10
KL 6, ZP 0
C=113, GS=94
Bench C 7, GS 35

Obviously there is more to the game than scoring (turnovers 14/13, rebounds 40/42, etc), but in the end the only stat that matters is the final score. I don't think that they use Corver very well. Cle will obviously need to build their bench, especially a PF who can score and play D.

Movingtarget, I don't agree about KI. I think that he and LJ are a good combo. Plus, I question your "solo act" assertion since only James and Curry had more assists than KI last night. EDIT: He could move better without the ball though.

Let's compare him to SC in 2017:
Points: 25.2, 25.3
Assists: 5.8, 6.6
TOs: 2.5, 3.0
Reb: 3.2, 4.5
FG%: .473, .468


Fair point. Cavs will be frustrated with that after Game Four. Like the panel said in the game review. Love, Irving and Lebron all have to be at their best in every game to compete with the Warriors and it didn't happen. Love can be streaky as can JR Smith. Irving is a great player but I was surprised his stats were that good. When Curry becomes the second best player for his team then you know it's going to be a tough night. The bench made a huge difference for the Warriors of course. Losing Bogut in his first game of the season really hurt the Cavs defense because he has the size to cause problems and he is a quality defender even if he is past his best.

I watched the link you posted, but I must admit that I really don't like SAS, and therefore don't really care what he has to say. I have no idea how he got to where he is. He's just not good IMO. Anyway, NFL is heating up! :)


The people on those shows clearly aren't there for any sports talent:

SAS hasn't even got a finals prediction right this decade (he picked the cavs this year)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r06rvgRLSw

But Im pretty sure what they do is staged. How comes every single debate they have the 2 panelists ALWAYS have a different opinion?
They have meetings before hand and they decide who will say what stupid thing.

Skip bayless is the mvp of this. He will agree to say any stupid thing to get attention.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,701
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re:

15 Jun 2017 16:12

According to Nate Silver and his Elo rating—which ranks performances of NBA teams by point differential and quality of opposition—this year’s Warriors are the best team in history, edging out the 1995-96 Bulls. The 1996-97 Bulls are third, followed by the Warriors teams of the previous two years. So the Warriors already have three of the top five teams of all-time, though it must be said Silver has received a lot of criticism for a ranking that leaves out all the 1980s Lakers teams, all but one Celtics team, and includes the Cavaliers—not of the past three years, but from 2009, when they failed even to make the NBA finals.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/874675939355095041

Elo is calculated under several different conditions—peak, the highest point during the regular or postseason; average throughout the season; and at the end of the season. Silver ranks teams by an average of these three ratings, but this year’s Warriors also had the highest peak—right after their 3-0 start to the NBA finals—and the highest ending rating. The 2015-16 Warriors, the 73 win team, had the highest average, but their overall rating was pulled down by losing the NBA finals, resulting in a much lower end rating.

One of the great under-reported stories of this year’s NBA is that the Cavaliers, again, greatly out-performed their Elo rating in the playoffs. Just before the end of the season, Silver gave them only a 2% chance of winning the NBA finals, based on not only a relatively poor regular season record—by W-L, they finished in a 4-way tie for fifth, and by point differential they were only 8th—but they were playing particularly poorly at the end of the season. Like most performance metrics, Elo has a recency bias.

The past three years, the Cavs have averaged 15 fewer wins per season than the Warriors, yet every time the postseason has come around, they have blown through the Eastern Conference, and except for this year, played the Warriors very competitively in the finals. Why the discrepancy? Silver considers several possibilities, but I think the simplest one is the main one: the Cavaliers don’t try that hard during the regular season. I find this very ironic, because one of the great over-reported stories of the NBA this year is that teams rest their star players sometimes, to keep them fresh for the postseason, and the fans complain they get cheated when they pay to see a game and those players aren’t on the floor. But it seems to me the Cavs are basically resting their players much of the season, just going through the motions in a weak conference, then getting serious during the playoffs. If the fans really want to complain about being cheated, they ought to ask why the Cavs team they see during the regular season bears so little resemblance to the one that plays in the postseason, whereas with the Warriors, what you see is what you get.

When the Warriors began the 2015-16 season with 24 straight wins, it was a record not just for the NBA, but for any North American pro sport. I think their 16-1 postseason record should be considered in the same light. Of the four major sports, none has ever featured a team that went undefeated under the current extended postseason format, except of course the NFL, where each round is one game, so the SB winner is always undefeated in the postseason.

The last MLB team to go undefeated in the postseason was the 1976 Reds, who were 7-0, and that was when there was just one best-of-five league championship series preceding the WS. The best record in the current format, with one best-of-five division series followed by a best-of-seven championship series, then the WS, is 11-1, achieved by the 1999 Yankees and 2005 White Sox.

In the NHL, the last team to go undefeated in the postseason was the 1960 Canadiens, who played just two best-of-seven series, and thus finished 8-0. In 1968, a third best-of-seven series was added to the playoffs, and in that first year, the Canadiens went 12-1, which is the best ever for that format. In the current NHL format, begun in the 1980s, teams play four best-of-seven series in the postseason, just like the NBA, and I believe the best record for that was achieved by the 1988 Oilers, who went 16-2. That team strikes me as a lot like the current Warriors, an offensive powerhouse loaded with great players, beginning, of course, with Gretzky.

The former NBA record was 15-1, so the Warriors now have the best single postseason record of any sport that plays three or more short series. They also have the record for the most consecutive wins to begin a postseason, and I believe the record for the most consecutive wins within one or consecutive postseasons. Wrt the latter, the Cavs shared the old NBA record of 13, which they tied in their Game 2 win over Boston in the EC finals. The Warriors broke that record when they won Game 2 in the NBA finals.
jmdirt wrote:
A lot is being made of KD being the reason that GS won, but in a series like this, the starters tend to cancel each other out, and its the roll players/bench that make the difference. In this case, the Cle starters beat the GS starters, and it was the bench, Igu, who won the game.

LJ 41, KD 39
KI 26, SC 34
JS 25, KT 11
TT 15, DG 10
KL 6, ZP 0
C=113, GS=94
Bench C 7, GS 35


While the Warriors definitely had the edge in the bench, this scoring comparison is misleading, because it treats Iguodala as a bench player. Technically that’s true, because he’s not on the floor when the game begins, but he’s a starter in the more meaningful sense that in the postseason he plays about as much as the nominal starters do. His 38 minutes in Game 5 was fourth highest of the Warriors, after Green, Durant and Curry, and more than Thompson, let alone ZaZa. If you move Iggy’s 20 points from bench to starters, the bench edge is now just 15-7 (ZaZa didn’t score, so considering him as a bench player doesn’t affect this), while the starters comparison is 114-113, GS (though GS starters, including Iggy, played slightly more minutes than Cleveland’s front five did).
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,163
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Re:

15 Jun 2017 17:19

Merckx index wrote:According to Nate Silver and his Elo rating—which ranks performances of NBA teams by point differential and quality of opposition—this year’s Warriors are the best team in history, edging out the 1995-96 Bulls. The 1996-97 Bulls are third, followed by the Warriors teams of the previous two years. So the Warriors already have three of the top five teams of all-time, though it must be said Silver has received a lot of criticism for a ranking that leaves out all the 1980s Lakers teams, all but one Celtics team, and includes the Cavaliers—not of the past three years, but from 2009, when they failed even to make the NBA finals.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/874675939355095041

Elo is calculated under several different conditions—peak, the highest point during the regular or postseason; average throughout the season; and at the end of the season. Silver ranks teams by an average of these three ratings, but this year’s Warriors also had the highest peak—right after their 3-0 start to the NBA finals—and the highest ending rating. The 2015-16 Warriors, the 73 win team, had the highest average, but their overall rating was pulled down by losing the NBA finals, resulting in a much lower end rating.

One of the great under-reported stories of this year’s NBA is that the Cavaliers, again, greatly out-performed their Elo rating in the playoffs. Just before the end of the season, Silver gave them only a 2% chance of winning the NBA finals, based on not only a relatively poor regular season record—by W-L, they finished in a 4-way tie for fifth, and by point differential they were only 8th—but they were playing particularly poorly at the end of the season. Like most performance metrics, Elo has a recency bias.

The past three years, the Cavs have averaged 15 fewer wins per season than the Warriors, yet every time the postseason has come around, they have blown through the Eastern Conference, and except for this year, played the Warriors very competitively in the finals. Why the discrepancy? Silver considers several possibilities, but I think the simplest one is the main one: the Cavaliers don’t try that hard during the regular season. I find this very ironic, because one of the great over-reported stories of the NBA this year is that teams rest their star players sometimes, to keep them fresh for the postseason, and the fans complain they get cheated when they pay to see a game and those players aren’t on the floor. But it seems to me the Cavs are basically resting their players much of the season, just going through the motions in a weak conference, then getting serious during the playoffs. If the fans really want to complain about being cheated, they ought to ask why the Cavs team they see during the regular season bears so little resemblance to the one that plays in the postseason, whereas with the Warriors, what you see is what you get.

When the Warriors began the 2015-16 season with 24 straight wins, it was a record not just for the NBA, but for any North American pro sport. I think their 16-1 postseason record should be considered in the same light. Of the four major sports, none has ever featured a team that went undefeated under the current extended postseason format, except of course the NFL, where each round is one game, so the SB winner is always undefeated in the postseason.

The last MLB team to go undefeated in the postseason was the 1976 Reds, who were 7-0, and that was when there was just one best-of-five league championship series preceding the WS. The best record in the current format, with one best-of-five division series followed by a best-of-seven championship series, then the WS, is 11-1, achieved by the 1999 Yankees and 2005 White Sox.

In the NHL, the last team to go undefeated in the postseason was the 1960 Canadiens, who played just two best-of-seven series, and thus finished 8-0. In 1968, a third best-of-seven series was added to the playoffs, and in that first year, the Canadiens went 12-1, which is the best ever for that format. In the current NHL format, begun in the 1980s, teams play four best-of-seven series in the postseason, just like the NBA, and I believe the best record for that was achieved by the 1988 Oilers, who went 16-2. That team strikes me as a lot like the current Warriors, an offensive powerhouse loaded with great players, beginning, of course, with Gretzky.

The former NBA record was 15-1, so the Warriors now have the best single postseason record of any sport that plays three or more short series. They also have the record for the most consecutive wins to begin a postseason, and I believe the record for the most consecutive wins within one or consecutive postseasons. Wrt the latter, the Cavs shared the old NBA record of 13, which they tied in their Game 2 win over Boston in the EC finals. The Warriors broke that record when they won Game 2 in the NBA finals.
jmdirt wrote:
A lot is being made of KD being the reason that GS won, but in a series like this, the starters tend to cancel each other out, and its the roll players/bench that make the difference. In this case, the Cle starters beat the GS starters, and it was the bench, Igu, who won the game.

LJ 41, KD 39
KI 26, SC 34
JS 25, KT 11
TT 15, DG 10
KL 6, ZP 0
C=113, GS=94
Bench C 7, GS 35


While the Warriors definitely had the edge in the bench, this scoring comparison is misleading, because it treats Iguodala as a bench player. Technically that’s true, because he’s not on the floor when the game begins, but he’s a starter in the more meaningful sense that in the postseason he plays about as much as the nominal starters do. His 38 minutes in Game 5 was fourth highest of the Warriors, after Green, Durant and Curry, and more than Thompson, let alone ZaZa. If you move Iggy’s 20 points from bench to starters, the bench edge is now just 15-7 (ZaZa didn’t score, so considering him as a bench player doesn’t affect this), while the starters comparison is 114-113, GS (though GS starters, including Iggy, played slightly more minutes than Cleveland’s front five did).

OK, but my point(s) still stands even if you put Igu in the starting line up.

LJ 41, KD 39
KI 26, SC 34
JS 25, KT 11
TT 15, DG 10
KL 6, AI 20
C=113, GS=114
Bench C 7, GS 15
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,406
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33


23 Jun 2017 12:36

Six point guards taken in the first 12 picks!

With the Sixers nabbing Fultz, on paper their building process is complete, if, if, Simmons can get and stay healthy, and can amount to even 3/4 of the player he was projected to be. With Embiid in the middle, plus Saric, this is a big team who can move, and move the ball around, with huge upside potential.

Maybe.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,055
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

Re:

23 Jun 2017 14:33

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Six point guards taken in the first 12 picks!

With the Sixers nabbing Fultz, on paper their building process is complete, if, if, Simmons can get and stay healthy, and can amount to even 3/4 of the player he was projected to be. With Embiid in the middle, plus Saric, this is a big team who can move, and move the ball around, with huge upside potential.

Maybe.


No doubt Simmons is quality but injuries often derail promising careers.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,980
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

28 Jun 2017 22:55

Houston got Chris Paul, and they're still pursuing Paul George. I like the big two of Harden and Paul, and the big three if they add George. I've already heard the talking heads (not David Byrne:)) questioning how CP and JH can play together. CP is a better point than JH, and will make JH better, plus I heard the same blah-blah about Golden State, no need to type how that worked out. Hou needs to remember Cle's bench failure while they are building/shuffling/trading. They drafted a 7-footer this year to get better in the paint.
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,406
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

Re:

29 Jun 2017 12:20

jmdirt wrote:Houston got Chris Paul, and they're still pursuing Paul George. I like the big two of Harden and Paul, and the big three if they add George. I've already heard the talking heads (not David Byrne:)) questioning how CP and JH can play together. CP is a better point than JH, and will make JH better, plus I heard the same blah-blah about Golden State, no need to type how that worked out. Hou needs to remember Cle's bench failure while they are building/shuffling/trading. They drafted a 7-footer this year to get better in the paint.


Sounds like Lebron will only be at the Cavs for another year so the rumor mill is saying. If that happens others will go as well. Cavs might be coming back to the field in the East. A few teams like the Bucks should be much better in a year or two.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,980
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

01 Jul 2017 04:02

So Paul George is going to OKC. He and Westbrook could be a great duo!
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,406
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

03 Jul 2017 08:20

And now I am curious about Carmelo Anthony's future,Knicks,Cavaliers or Rockets ?
Image
Last edited by Ben5 on 08 Jul 2017 08:24, edited 1 time in total.
Ben5
Newly Registered Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 01 Dec 2016 08:16

03 Jul 2017 20:46

I don't get why you would trade Kevin Love for Carmelo. You are trading away a cheaper 29 year old with peak years still ahead of him for a more expensive 33 year old who could fall of any year
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,701
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re:

03 Jul 2017 22:28

The Hitch wrote:I don't get why you would trade Kevin Love for Carmelo. You are trading away a cheaper 29 year old with peak years still ahead of him for a more expensive 33 year old who could fall of any year

Well said. I think that love is better, lower maintenance, younger, and lower cost. Plus, he is already part of the crew, maybe 'Melo won't gel? Love needs to be more consistent, but the same could be said for CA.
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,406
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

04 Jul 2017 03:42

If you're an 80s NBA fan like me, you will enjoy this film/doc:

Magic and Bird: A Courtship of Rivals

It available on HBO and youtube.
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,406
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33



Re: NBA / NCAA Basketball

02 Aug 2017 22:25

This is hilarious around 2-4 minutes into the video:
Watch "Steph Curry is the Teflon puppy of the NBA | THE HERD" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/x0_Xd51aus8
User avatar on3m@n@rmy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,743
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 12:25
Location: PNW


04 Aug 2017 20:59

I think Kyrie is getting bad advice from his confidantes. I can understand his wanting to be "The Man" and to show that he can successfully lead a team but the Knicks isN'T exactly a stable franchise in terms of the ownership/managerial decisions of the past few decades. Him being from the east coast I can understand the draw of wanting to come home and rescue his home team from hits decades long position of mediocrity but I can't help but suspect that he hasn't really thought this plan all the way through. The Knicks in turn would have a major draw for fans at the Garden but with Kyrie's aversion to playing defense in a league that has become point guard nirvana, the benefits of his unstoppable offensive talents would be counter balanced by his lack of willingness to put a concerted effort into slowing down his point guard rivals. At least in Cleveland he had players willng to back him up when the inevitable happened and his point guard rival blew by him. In New York it would be a parade of layups for rivals with little opposition as backup.
User avatar Angliru
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,979
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 13:30

Re: NBA / NCAA Basketball

06 Aug 2017 17:36

....Irving is going to regret this...

Cheers
User avatar blutto
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,573
Joined: 04 Jul 2009 19:27

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Back to top