The basketball thread
-
@Wolfs said:
So, it's not just a matter of the Warriors outscoring everybody in shooting battles. Now, if that's the direction the game goes, they are much better equipped than the Spurs to do that, but they can and do dominate through defense as well.
From the ESPN stats, you have to look at Pace as well. Spurs play a slower game. The Spurs have a worse offensive efficiency, but a better defensive efficiency (and by a slightly larger margin). Otherwise, the Spurs have fewer turnovers and a slightly better rebounding rate. Numbers tell me that the Spurs are a better team. But the Warriors have the better record. So, that's why I concluded that the Warriors can, and will, lean on their offense to win. Because this is the case.
This is still not a knock against the Warriors.
If I had to place a bet? I still wouldn't bet against the Warriors. Not in a second. Head-to-head, they'll take down the Spurs more often than not. That said, if any team could compare, it would be the Spurs. They give you the best shot of knocking off the Warriors.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede Here's a question for you (all).
Would an elimination format such as FIBA's and NCAA be worth it, as it adds to the excitement ('anything can happen in one game') but takes away from the measure of a better team?
Maybe add a third possibility for a point differential over two games (home court advantage=you play second) if you want.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
on a single elimination format for NBA playoffs ... God no. Fluke wins happen,do we really want an 8 seed to squeek into the playoffs and go on a win streak of 4 games to become a champion?
the second is a little better but I still prefer seven games. The NCAA way is great for creating dramatic moments like my podunk middle of nowhere uni getting the the sweet 16 when I was a junior and the whole city going crazy. And it works for a tournament of 64 teams where at least theoretically the players have classes to get back to as a higher priority, or for contact sports like foot ball where you really con only play once a week so any series would stretch things forever but I think a seven games series is how you assure the best team ends up the champion.
Conversely I would be fine with the European soccer route of just giving the title to the best regular season finisher, but that I think is a distant second to the current playoff format. -
@Arkandel said:
Would an elimination format such as FIBA's and NCAA be worth it, as it adds to the excitement ('anything can happen in one game') but takes away from the measure of a better team?
Fuck no.
-
@Ganymede Won't argue that. Hard to bet against Pop figuring something out. It'd be the series everybody wants to see.
The Warriors haven't been quite as consistent defensively this season, but they've got up for the games they really needed to overall. Some of their lapses have come against lesser teams, but they're 13-0 against the Top 4 in each conference (Top 3 in the West, excluding them).
San Antonio is 5-6 in the same situation, though they meet the Warriors three more times in the regular season, with both in San Antonio coming as the second of back-to-backs for the Warriors (situations the Warriors ARE 14-1 in, I believe).
Against playoff teams as of right now, the Warriors are 13-0 against the East and 13-2 against the West, or 26-2 overall. San Antonio is 8-3 against the East and 11-4 against the West, or 19-7 overall.
San Antonio has two losses to teams not currently in a playoff spot (New Orleans and Washington). Golden State has three (Milwaukee, Detroit, and Denver).
All of these losses, for both teams, have come on the road. Both are still perfect at home. We're seeing two historically great years from a pair of teams in the same conference, and they probably couldn't be more different in the process.
We can't even guess for sure what sort of thing we may see yet when it comes to nights off for some people late in the season. If San Antonio stays this close, it'll be tough to "toss" a game by sitting Curry and/or Thompson, and if the Warriors have a legit shot at breaking 72-10 I think they're going to go for it even though the title is the ultimate goal.
-
@Wolfs said:
All of these losses, for both teams, have come on the road. Both are still perfect at home. We're seeing two historically great years from a pair of teams in the same conference, and they probably couldn't be more different in the process.
Right. My money is on Golden State, despite the Spurs' superior stats, because they can score boatloads very fast. The Spurs are a system-team, and if they get down early and you can keep them down, it's hard for them to score 10+ in a minute.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Arkandel said:
@Ganymede Here's a question for you (all).
Would an elimination format such as FIBA's and NCAA be worth it, as it adds to the excitement ('anything can happen in one game') but takes away from the measure of a better team?
Maybe add a third possibility for a point differential over two games (home court advantage=you play second) if you want.
Noooope. In a full-length series, the best team should come out on top. Once in a while you'll get a major upset (8th Warriors over 1st Mavericks in 6 about a decade ago now, but that was also a bad matchup for Dallas), but normally the best team will get through even with a hiccup or two. The advantage to taking care of business quickly can mean a few extra days of rest while next round's opponent is in a grind, though that also has the chance of breaking your own rhythm if you have too many days away from game action.
But, no. With the money on the line, the endorsements, the length of the season and all that, I don't think you'll ever see a one-and-done format or anything that has some sort of points-based advantage. It's going to get decided on the court.
I don't even really like the one-game wild card play-in thing with MLB, but they're determined to have more teams in the mix for the postseason and unless you start the season earlier or chop off a week or two of the regular season to avoid routinely going into November with the World Series, the one-game wild card, best-of-5 division series, best-of-7 championship series and World Series format isn't terrible.
What gets to be difficult is when one team has an ace or two they can line up to pitch twice each in a long series, while the opponent may have had to use their ace over the final weekend (or in the wild card game) just to get to the division series. But, that's the way it goes. Even then, sending Kershaw or Price or whoever else out there isn't a guarantee of an automatic win.
When you have a wild card situation, those teams do kind of have to be kept at some sort of disadvantage compared to the division winners, so their path is going to be tougher with less margin for error. In sports where you have no wild card and it's strictly seedings, that's different.
-
@Ganymede said:
Right. My money is on Golden State, despite the Spurs' superior stats, because they can score boatloads very fast. The Spurs are a system-team, and if they get down early and you can keep them down, it's hard for them to score 10+ in a minute.
When you have Stephen Curry, pretty much anything is possible. What's scary now is more often than not, it feels like the impossible happens.
-
Handy advice. I chuckled.
http://www.sbnation.com/2016/2/29/11132362/golden-state-warriors-never-lose-rules
-
-
@Arkandel I liked the video and it makes great points... except for the one about it being bad for the game. It is a team game. There's no reason a team shouldn't be able to play defense. Having 4 of 5 guys huddle in a corner while your best player forces the other team to go 1 on 1 takes something away from the fact that this is supposed to be a team sport. Do the superstars hate it, of course. But not because it hurts the game. Because it hurts their individual stats. This is why But basketball isn't about one person's individual stats. The only change I've noticed is that now a team can't be carried by one person. I don't see anything wrong with that.
If there is that much interest in that style of play, someone should invest in creating a new 1 on 1 league. Like UFC but for basketball.
-
72-9. Damn.
-
@Wolfs And the Spurs' perfect home record ruined.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Misadventure said:
OMG sports nerds.
My personal life theory is that everything has its 'nerds'. People who play Fantasy Football, for example, are Football Nerds. Movie Star Nerds. Politics Nerds. My god, it's full of Nerds.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
@Thenomain Yeah, and nerdism categories overlap. Stereotypes are just for TV shows, we're all over the place.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Misadventure said:
Make a spectacle of your love for something: Geek.
So what's the difference between a Fanboi and a Geek?
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
This post is deleted! -
@Thenomain For me the difference is simple: fanboys won't admit fault. Everything about the object of their affections is perfect, 10/10 all the time!
On the other hand I'm a comic book nerd (geek?) but I can look at say, Batman vs Superman and admit it has big flaws even though I love the characters. I love the Fantastic Four but their only good movie ever made was by Pixar. Etc.
As for @Misadventure's terms I disagree on the definitions. A geek loves something, collects cool quotes, knows about trivia, etc... but a nerd becomes an expert in it, they might not go as wide but they go deeper. So for instance a Linux geek might have penguin stickers for their laptops and know anecdotes about Linus' early steps, they've probably set up more than a few systems using a GUI installer, but a Linux nerd will know how to edit grub or have strong opinions on whether systemd is evil or not.
