I've heard that too. But the club will be looking into the years after the first luxury tax year because the repeater tax is even worseOriginally Posted by French Pelican
 |
| . |
|
I've heard that too. But the club will be looking into the years after the first luxury tax year because the repeater tax is even worse
That’s why I hope we don’t give too much money to Boogie Rondo and even Clark this summer. I kind of hope that with how things played out this year they will be willing to take a little less to stay here.
The Jazz are going to take the Rockets to 6 or 7.
If you Jimmer it, they will come.
Right now it looks like the Twolves might
Lebron James is the man. I know that's not a revelation or anything, but dang in the last 5 seconds he blocked a shot and then hit the game winning basket at the buzzer. He did it all by himself.
Greatest player of all time.
Basketball.
Thank goodness Russ Westbrook isn’t a stats padder, that would make watching the Thunder insufferable.
I don't understand. You seem to be implying his team's could win if he didn't go 9/24 from the field and actually played defense. You're just a hater; Westbrook is all about winning, he'd take the lowest triple double possible if it meant a win
The sarcasm is strong in this one
I'm a grinder
If OKC wins game 6 and 7...Then, what do all of the teams in the WCSF have in common (assuming Boogie was healthy)? You need a superteam to come out of the West.
OKC has 2-3 (depending on if you count Melo). HOU has 2 (with the best role players). GSW has 3-4 (depending on if you count DG). NOP has 2.
I hate it, but it is what it is.
We need that 3rd star SF.
Last edited by WhyHornetsWhy; 04-25-2018 at 11:40 PM.
This is moot because OKC is not making it out of the first round. Yes, having more stars makes you more likely to proceed, but chemistry is more important than just having names. We have no more star power than OKC but we are a significantly better team because they have no system, no chemistry, and no co-operation.
Nobody counts Melo.
Chemistry can only get you so far though. Think about it like this. What if you have a superteam that has 2-3 stars with GOOD CHEMISTRY? -It not only adds the element of having good chemistry (just like what you said), but it also adds on to having more of a talented team because having more stars on the team.
Basically, if good chemistry is washed out (meaning, both teams have good chemistry), then who is likely to proceed?
My point is: Good team with less stars but have good chemistry < More talented super team with the same good chemistry
Both teams have good chemistry, but the more talented team is going to have a more likely chance to proceed.
Yes, I'm aware. Your point though was based on the condition that OKC moves forward, causing an implication that all of the teams who make it into the second round have at least 2 superstars (you said, if we count Boogie).
Given that Boogie hasn't played in any of these playoffs and won't, I don't count him. So we have one superstar in AD. And it would be extremely unlikely for OKC to move on, so Utah will show that you can also move forward with 0 superstars.
And given that we also have historical examples (2011 Mavs, 2004 Pistons) of teams which have relatively little star power but proceed to ring up anyway, it seems fair to me to say that having more superstars may increase the likelihood of you progressing in the playoffs, but success is in no way contingent upon said star power.
lol what I'm trying to say is this:
A team with 2 superstars and have good chemistry is highly unlikely to have a higher chance of proceeding compared to a team with 3-4 superstars that also have good chemistry as well.
My point was more directed towards the last part-We need a talented SF. Preferably a star lol
success or not, all I am saying is having more stars could increase the chances of progressing if chemistry is there.
You said: "Historical examples of teams with little star power that proceeded to a ring..."....Well, that's because there wasn't a GSW superteam at that time. What happened to the championship teams in the NBA after the 2011 era?
Nowadays, it's different. It seems like you absolutely need a superteam (With GOOD CHEMISTRY) to give you the best chance of winning a championship--Ex: Spurs, Heat, GSW,
Last edited by WhyHornetsWhy; 04-26-2018 at 12:00 AM.
...Which got me thinking...If Lebron went to Houston this offseason, no amount of "good chemistry" on a team is going to beat Houston unless you can match them talent wise...Which means we need a star SF (Kawhi)...If not, then it's going to be the GSW and HOU conference.
We are all entitled to our opinions, and my opinion is that: If a star like Lebron joins the Rockets, we will not beat that team in a 7 game series...no matter how good our chemistry is. The only way to win a championship is to do what has been working and proven for GSW and Houston: ...Add more stars. I keep coming to this: We need a star SF. Kawhi
Last edited by WhyHornetsWhy; 04-26-2018 at 12:17 AM.
There wasn't a Golden State style superteam? The 2011 Mavs beat the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Heat, which was the super-est super team since the 96 Bulls. It had arguably the greatest player of all time + the all time 3rd greatest shooting guard + the all-star Bosh.
You even listed that Heat in your superteams at the end of your post.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to disagree that having a superteam gives you the 'best chance', like you said. But to act like we 'need' a talented SF is just untrue. Yes, it would be very helpful if we had one, and yes it would increase our chances, but it's perfectly possible for a team with 1 transcendent star + a robust cast of talents who know their roles to overcome a stack of opposing all-stars, just like in 2011.
Lebron isn't joining the Rockets. And if he did, us adding Kawhi wouldn't actually increase our relative star power; they currently have 2, we would have 2 (with Boogie back off injury). They add Lebron, now they have 3. We add Kawhi, now we have 3. The relative star power doesn't actually change, if they had the odds on us now with 2 apiece, they'd have the odds on us with 3 apiece, especially if one of them was Lebron. Which just brings us back around to the idea that star power isn't actually the deciding factor, if we were to beat them it would be because we were the superior team in terms of chemistry and/or coaching.
Disregard everything above.
If coaching/chemistry is the deciding factor like you think it is, then please answer me this: What if both teams are good in coaching and team chemistry (meaning they are equal), then what happens?
If all we had was AD and Boogie with good role players, good team chemistry, and good coaching, and we had to play against a Houston team with Lebron, CP, and Harden (a superteam), good role players, and also have good chemistry and good coaching just like us...
If we lose that series to Houston, then what would be the main reason we lost? --Is it be because they were the more talented team due to having more stars (me) OR is it because they had a better team chemistry than us (you)?
I like to think our team chemistry is good. So, if we have a good coaching/good chemistry team and STILL lose to that Houston team, then what is the main reason we lost? --They are more talented.
If we could lay it out based on hypothetical numbers, and let's say for example:
Ad/Boogie team with 2 stars vs. Lebron/CP/Harden with 3 stars...If all things equal out (meaning both teams get a 10/10 in coaching, chemistry, and role players), then the only other deciding factor in that case would be talent if we lose to them.
On another note, coaching alone can't be the reason--Sure, they can draw up the plays to get you open, but having more talent that can make those shots can then increase the chances of those shots going down.
Last edited by WhyHornetsWhy; 04-26-2018 at 01:13 AM.
I believe I already answered this question. My exact words were 'it seems fair to me to say that having more superstars may increase the likelihood of you progressing in the playoffs, but success is in no way contingent upon said star power.'.
What that means is that yes, in a matchup where (all other things being precisely equal) the only serious difference is that one team has more superstars than the other, the likelihood of that team winning is higher. However, the fact that they have more superstars is not a guarantee that they will be the victors.
You're arguing a point I haven't made. You're acting like I said that talent doesn't matter at all, and chemistry/coaching are the only important factors. I haven't said that, or anything even really close to that. My point is, was, and will be, that whilst having superstars increases your likelihood of success all other things equal, it is not a guarantee of success and that in reality (given that most things are not equal in reality) the superstar count will not guarantee you a win.
I've given numerous examples of where this has happened:
2004 Shaq + Kobe (2 star) Lakers losing to the 2004 arguably star-less Detroit Pistons.
2011 Dirk (1 Star) Mavericks pulling off the upset over the (3 star) Heatles, beating teams like Kobe+Paul (2 Star) Lakers to get there.
Hell, there's even an argument that the 2016 Cavaliers (Lebron + Kyrie + 50% of Love) were the less talented team than the 2016 (Curry + Klay + Green) Warriors, and yet they won that series too.
Again, for clarification, just to put the nail in the coffin and fully make sure my point is understood: You are correct that all other things being identical having more superstars gives you a greater likelihood of success. However, as we have seen multiple times in the past and are seeing now with the OKC vs Jazz matchup, in real life teams are not 100% identical in all ways other than roster, and that can mean that superstar count can be nullified by external factors. In scenarios in which both teams are equally matched outside of the roster, the roster differences may well make one team the favourite over the other, but this is not any sort of guarantee of the winner as we see 'upsets' all the time.
I understand everything you are saying now.
The example with OKC and Jazz shows that OKC doesn't have team chemistry...True.
However, I am looking at it from another end. My example/question/and the point I was trying to make- What if we played against a superteam WITH good team chemistry and coaching (opposite of OKC)? What do you do then knowing that, at best, we can only match in chemistry and coaching? The plausible thing is to go out and get more talent. --I understand that you understand that. I'm just letting you know what my point was the whole time.
Last edited by WhyHornetsWhy; 04-26-2018 at 01:32 AM.
If, let's just imagine your scenario, Lebron goes to Houston next season, we re-sign Boogie and everything clicks, and we end up playing Houston in the conference finals.
Who wins? Assuming that the new Houston team has good chemistry (I'm not sure that it would) and has good coaching (I don't think D'Antoni coaches well for the playoffs, and I don't think Lebron would play well under a D'Antoni system, but still). Assuming that chemistry and that coaching, who is the favourite?
Obviously Houston. Because we would have two stars, they would have three, and their stars are at positions that are more 'important' in todays NBA; guards and wings.
However, the fact that they would be the on-paper favourites doesn't actually mean much. It's useless to speculate, because the only way to tell for sure would be to look at how those teams played together, the kinds of numbers they produced, the efficiency of the offense, the defensive rigour and robustness, etc etc. And we can't know any of that because the teams don't exist.
Which means it comes down to this: yes, on paper the team with the most stars is usually favoured to win, given solid coaching and reasonable chemistry on both sides. But what works on paper doesn't always work out in real life, and you never count a team out until they're out.
Ok, makes sense. Let's just say this- From a comfort level, I'd feel more confident having more stars lol. But, that's just me...and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
You're definitely not the only one. More stars makes people more confident because it does up the likelihood. You just have to be careful to not fall into the trap of thinking that you can just add a star and it will immediately fix problems. Minnesota and OKC are experiencing the proof that that strategy doesn't always mean much.
Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
Unrelated to all of the above though,
Glad to see the Minnesota Timberbulls eliminated.
Hey Guys do you know what happened to Michael McNamara’s Twitter account ? It seems to have disappear !
I know some of you doesn’t like him but i like his analysis and takes on the team.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote