April 29th - New Orleans Pelicans @ Oklahoma City Thunder - 27-35

[Pelicanidae]

Okay, so now it's game over. We win.

Zion: 27/9/6/1/0 on 50% shooting, 75% from the line. 0TO/0PF
Ingram: 24/6/3/1/0 on 50% shooting, 20% from 3, 75% from the line. 2TO/3PF

That's the heavy lifting from a scoring perspective there.

Hernangomez: 13/10 with an assist and 2 steals.
Lonzo: 6/10/6 with 3 steals on 25% shooting, 0/8 from 3
Bled: 7/3/4 on 3/8 shooting, 0/4 from 3.

Hayes with 8pts, 7rbds, 2blks off the bench.

Of our 5 made threes, 2 of them came from James Johnson and 2 from Naji Marshall.

[AusPel]

Zion was terrible on D once again

[new city champ]

The truly weird thing is, with 9 games to go, the Pels still control their own playoff destiny, they technically don’t need any help to get in.

We are 3 games back of Golden State and we play them 3 times. If we beat them 2 of 3 and end up with the same record, we win the tie breaker. So, e.g., if we go 7-2 and they go 4-5 and 2 of those loses are to us, both teams finish 35-37 and we’re in.

It’s still a long shot but I’m amazed we have any shot at all given all the close games we’ve lost this month...

[Pelicanidae]

The truly weird thing is, with 9 games to go, the Pels still control their own playoff destiny, they technically don’t need any help to get in.

We are 3 games back of Golden State and we play them 3 times. If we beat them 2 of 3 and end up with the same record, we win the tie breaker. So, e.g., if we go 7-2 and they go 4-5 and 2 of those loses are to us, both teams finish 35-37 and we’re in.

It’s still a long shot but I’m amazed we have any shot at all given all the close games we’ve lost this month...

Surely by your own calculation there, that means we do need help from Golden State.

If we go 7-2 and they go 4-5 and those two losses are to us then we tie and we get in.

But that requires them to go 4-5. If they also go 7-2, with the two losses being to us, then they finish with a better record and we miss the playins. That is, we need them to lose more than just 2 times to us. So either we need to sweep them and then win some more, which is fairly unlikely, or we need their help in losing at least a few other games.

[Stalwart385]

Surely by your own calculation there, that means we do need help from Golden State.

If we go 7-2 and they go 4-5 and those two losses are to us then we tie and we get in.

But that requires them to go 4-5. If they also go 7-2, with the two losses being to us, then they finish with a better record and we miss the playins. That is, we need them to lose more than just 2 times to us. So either we need to sweep them and then win some more, which is fairly unlikely, or we need their help in losing at least a few other games.

The sweep alone certainly isn't enough but we do technically control our own destiny. In the sense of, if we win out we get in the play-ins and no situation could prevent that.

Realistically I think we need to win like 7 of the last 9 (surely that would include the GSW tie-breaker). Which isn't too realistic. But hey I'm here for it.

[Pelicanidae]

The sweep alone certainly isn't enough but we do technically control our own destiny. In the sense of, if we win out we get in the play-ins and no situation could prevent that.

Realistically I think we need to win like 7 of the last 9 (surely that would include the GSW tie-breaker). Which isn't too realistic. But hey I'm here for it.

It's one of those things which is mathematically true, no we are not yet technically eliminated, but it would take a fairly convoluted and specific set of unlikely events for it to happen, such that it is almost certain we won't make it.

It's really annoying actually, if we're going to make the playoffs then make the playoffs, don't scrape into the 10th seed in the final game so that you can play - let's be honest here - one more game before getting booted, harming your draft spot for the sake of a single not-even-playoff game. It's the worst of all world's: minimise your draft pick as much as possible while still missing the actual playoffs.

If you're going to make the playoffs, make them. If you're not, don't. Don't do this whole ''ooooooh will they make it in to the play in on the very last day!!!'' shtick.

[Impose]

But you know Curry gonna drop 60 on us all 3 games lol

[Pelicanidae]

But you know Curry gonna drop 60 on us all 3 games lol

Since March 1st (21 games), Steph is averaging:

34.1pts, 5.7rbds, 4.9asts on 50.1/44.6/89.6 splits. He's doing that taking 12.8 threes a game.

If you reduce it to just the month of April, those become:

37.3pts, 6.1rbds, 4.6asts on 51.8/46.6/90.8 splits. On 13.7 threes a game.

I would be shocked if he didn't drop 45 on us at least twice. He might hit an NBA record threes in a game against us (currently 14, held by Klay).

[Stalwart385]

It's one of those things which is mathematically true, no we are not yet technically eliminated, but it would take a fairly convoluted and specific set of unlikely events for it to happen, such that it is almost certain we won't make it.

It's really annoying actually, if we're going to make the playoffs then make the playoffs, don't scrape into the 10th seed in the final game so that you can play - let's be honest here - one more game before getting booted, harming your draft spot for the sake of a single not-even-playoff game. It's the worst of all world's: minimise your draft pick as much as possible while still missing the actual playoffs.

If you're going to make the playoffs, make them. If you're not, don't. Don't do this whole ''ooooooh will they make it in to the play in on the very last day!!!'' shtick.

I don't see the difference between a few mid-round picks being a big deal. The difference of 1 to 3 yes. The difference of 8 to 10, not so much. I'd rather see them put the best they can on the floor and try to develop. I don't think that difference in pick changes the team as much as Zion and BI growing, or them getting more game time to decide on players for the offseason. Get Hayes and Kira playing winning basketball. Or getting NAW back out there doing the same. If they by miracle got some playoff experience I think that would be great for them as a young team.

[MichaelMcNamara]

I don't see as the difference of a few mid round picks being a big deal. The difference of 1 to 3 yes. The difference of 8 to 10, not so much. I'd rather see them put the best they can on the floor and try to develop.

People say this every year. Literally every year. But it is incorrect on two levels:

1. The odds to move up. If you are 8th, you have a 26.3% to move up to the top 4. 10th and you have a 13.9% chance to move up. So, nearly double the chance to get a top pick to use or trade for a better player.

2. Every year, one or two spots make a massive difference. We experienced it last year where a coin flip was the difference between Haliburton or Kira Lewis. And if you love Lewis, then a single pick meant the difference between Lewis and Aaron Nesmith or Cole Anthony level of prospects. Going back, the Celtics wanted Herro in 2019. He went 13, when they had 14. Imagine being #15 in 2018 and just missing out on SGA and Michael Porter. Same goes for 2018 when Donovan Mitchell and Bam go the two picks before you. Remember when we had 10 and Drummond went 9? I can go on and on

People say this every year months before the draft, but on the night of the draft you always wish you were 1 or 2 or 3 spots higher. Not to mention, every pick higher you are up, the better caliber of player you can get it trades. It is fine to argue that there is more value in playing in games down the stretch that matter than there is in increasing your draft slot. But dont try to act like the latter is insignificant to make that claim. Every draft slot up matters for the two reasons I listed above. The only debate is if playing in competitive games matters more.

[Stalwart385]

People say this every year. Literally every year. But it is incorrect on two levels:

1. The odds to move up. If you are 8th, you have a 26.3% to move up to the top 4. 10th and you have a 13.9% chance to move up. So, nearly double the chance to get a top pick to use or trade for a better player.

2. Every year, one or two spots make a massive difference. We experienced it last year where a coin flip was the difference between Haliburton or Kira Lewis. And if you love Lewis, then a single pick meant the difference between Lewis and Aaron Nesmith or Cole Anthony level of prospects. Going back, the Celtics wanted Herro in 2019. He went 13, when they had 14. Imagine being #15 in 2018 and just missing out on SGA and Michael Porter. Same goes for 2018 when Donovan Mitchell and Bam go the two picks before you. Remember when we had 10 and Drummond went 9? I can go on and on

People say this every year months before the draft, but on the night of the draft you always wish you were 1 or 2 or 3 spots higher. Not to mention, every pick higher you are up, the better caliber of player you can get it trades. It is fine to argue that there is more value in playing in games down the stretch that matter than there is in increasing your draft slot. But dont try to act like the latter is insignificant to make that claim. Every draft slot up matters for the two reasons I listed above. The only debate is if playing in competitive games matters more.

You say double I say 13% more chance. The double of not much is still not much. It's not insignificant, just not as significant to me. I don't see any of it as a sure thing especially after the first few picks. That 10th pick could end up being better than the 8th pick. Sure the chances or better, but is it worth tanking your team.

I see a large complaint around here about the losing culture of this team. Yet we want them to purposely lose games. That doesn't jive with me. They need to learn to win games more than anything imo.

[MichaelMcNamara]

You say double I say 13% more chance. The double of not much is still not much. It's not insignificant, just not as significant to me. I don't see any of it as a sure thing especially after the first few picks. That 10th pick could end up being better than the 8th pick. Sure the chances or better, but is it worth tanking your team.

I see a large complaint around here about the losing culture of this team. Yet we want them to purposely lose games. That doesn't jive with me. They need to learn to win games more than anything imo.

Again, you dont have to say the other side has NO value to say it has LESS value. People do that on message boards, and it is why the conversation is often sophomoric. Both things (better pick and late wins) COULD have some value. Or a lot of value. Or none.

I was told that getting into the playoffs and getting that experience would lead to a better culture and mindset. In both years where AD made the playoffs, the team was worse the next year. Remember the no brakes Tyreke and AD team that won a bunch of games late and made their way into the playoffs? How much value did that add? Wolves finally made the playoffs after years of not doing it and it was supposed to teach KAT and Wiggins and change the culture. Nah. With OKC, getting in probably helped. Or maybe they just had so much talent that they were gonna be awesome any way.

The point is that if you want a certain conclusion, it is REAL easy to point to examples where your side had benefits and the other side had none. The objective truth is that the Pelicans winning 8 of their last 10 might have better long term benefits than getting the 8th most ping pong balls. Might not. But both have value, and every single year people come on and say there is no difference between a few slots. And thats just not true. It can have massive benefits or minor ones - thats unknowable. But even in the drafts where the "10th pick ended up better than the 8th pick" the team with the 8th pick had a chance at that player picked 10th. In the drafts where the 8th pick was much better than the 10th, the team with the 10th pick did not have the opportunity to take that guy chosen 8th. So, in every case it is better to have the 8th pick than the 10th. Every single one.

[Stalwart385]

Again, you dont have to say the other side has NO value to say it has LESS value. People do that on message boards, and it is why the conversation is often sophomoric. Both things (better pick and late wins) COULD have some value. Or a lot of value. Or none.

I was told that getting into the playoffs and getting that experience would lead to a better culture and mindset. In both years where AD made the playoffs, the team was worse the next year. Remember the no brakes Tyreke and AD team that won a bunch of games late and made their way into the playoffs? How much value did that add? Wolves finally made the playoffs after years of not doing it and it was supposed to teach KAT and Wiggins and change the culture. Nah. With OKC, getting in probably helped. Or maybe they just had so much talent that they were gonna be awesome any way.

The point is that if you want a certain conclusion, it is REAL easy to point to examples where your side had benefits and the other side had none. The objective truth is that the Pelicans winning 8 of their last 10 might have better long term benefits than getting the 8th most ping pong balls. Might not. But both have value, and every single year people come on and say there is no difference between a few slots. And thats just not true. It can have massive benefits or minor ones - thats unknowable. But even in the drafts where the "10th pick ended up better than the 8th pick" the team with the 8th pick had a chance at that player picked 10th. In the drafts where the 8th pick was much better than the 10th, the team with the 10th pick did not have the opportunity to take that guy chosen 8th. So, in every case it is better to have the 8th pick than the 10th. Every single one.

While this team still needs talent they are by in large in the development phase. They are competing with every team in this league they just can't figure out how to win games. They need to spend as much time developing as they can. The only way you tank this team is by sitting your 2 players you are hoping to see develop the most. Maybe they learn nothing in a few weeks, maybe they go 6 of 9 missing the playin but gain some confidence, maybe they go on a roll and go into next year firing. Either way, I see that time as more beneficial than a few percentage points of a lottery ticket on a rookie that isn't going to be a sure thing and might help the team in a couple years.

The alternative of telling your 2 young stars, who by all accounts seem like fierce competitors, to stop playing so you can lose seems bad. Not like neutral bad, but sending this in the opposite direction.

[MichaelMcNamara]

I dont think more than like 2% of the fan base (if that) wants us to sit Zion and Ingram if they are healthy. The desire is for us to try to win and still lose (which we have been doing all year). Sitting guys like Bledsoe makes sense to accomplish both objectives (more losses and more PT for young players). Sitting Adams has been a no brainer for weeks, as the only way to possible get value out of him is if he fixes his body.

But a very very very minute percentage of Pels fans want to sit Zion and Ingram. And a very large portion would like to see the Pelicans lose games. Dont conflate the two. I want those guys to play as many minutes together as possible down the stretch and I also want to see us lose by 2 on a BS no call at the end of the game. And I would bet almost all the fans rooting for losses want that exact same thing.

[new city champ]

Surely by your own calculation there, that means we do need help from Golden State.

If we go 7-2 and they go 4-5 and those two losses are to us then we tie and we get in.

But that requires them to go 4-5. If they also go 7-2, with the two losses being to us, then they finish with a better record and we miss the playins. That is, we need them to lose more than just 2 times to us. So either we need to sweep them and then win some more, which is fairly unlikely, or we need their help in losing at least a few other games.

Sorry, was presenting two slightly different scenarios. Don’t need any help at all if we win out. Second was a (slightly) more realistic hypothetical, though I freely admit neither is very likely. Just odd to me we have any chance at all, though we were in a similar position in 2015 when we surged late and got in by beating the Spurs in the final game of the year. Also agree that hoping for a wild finish to scrape into 10th place is not very satisfactory...

[johnpagenola]

The alternative of telling your 2 young stars, who by all accounts seem like fierce competitors, to stop playing so you can lose seems bad. Not like neutral bad, but sending this in the opposite direction.

There are other ways to lose. Monty used to put Marco Belinelli in to handle the ball at the end of the season. Belinelli lost the ball quite frequently, of course, and so the Hornets lost the games. Result: AD in the draft. Just as an example, if Bledsoe guards Curry in these next few games coming up that is a tank move without asking our young stars to stop playing.

[6warddude]

I dont think more than like 2% of the fan base (if that) wants us to sit Zion and Ingram if they are healthy. The desire is for us to try to win and still lose (which we have been doing all year). Sitting guys like Bledsoe makes sense to accomplish both objectives (more losses and more PT for young players). Sitting Adams has been a no brainer for weeks, as the only way to possible get value out of him is if he fixes his body.

But a very very very minute percentage of Pels fans want to sit Zion and Ingram. And a very large portion would like to see the Pelicans lose games. Dont conflate the two. I want those guys to play as many minutes together as possible down the stretch and I also want to see us lose by 2 on a BS no call at the end of the game. And I would bet almost all the fans rooting for losses want that exact same thing.

i hear what you are saying about saying one debate is less value than the other....is it fair to say that if we make the play in and cost ourselves a couple of spots in the draft,,we can use some of our picks to move into the top 5 of this year draft?...

[ragincaucasian]

This team is going nowhere with this current roster. A few meaningless wins at the end of a season does close to nothing. Even if we made the play in, we aren't going to be there long.

However, if a shooting big happens to slip a few spots in the draft and we are there to snag him up...that makes a REAL difference.

Saying we should win because it hurts our 'culture' is not seeing the big picture.

[Stalwart385]

I dont think more than like 2% of the fan base (if that) wants us to sit Zion and Ingram if they are healthy. The desire is for us to try to win and still lose (which we have been doing all year). Sitting guys like Bledsoe makes sense to accomplish both objectives (more losses and more PT for young players). Sitting Adams has been a no brainer for weeks, as the only way to possible get value out of him is if he fixes his body.

But a very very very minute percentage of Pels fans want to sit Zion and Ingram. And a very large portion would like to see the Pelicans lose games. Dont conflate the two. I want those guys to play as many minutes together as possible down the stretch and I also want to see us lose by 2 on a BS no call at the end of the game. And I would bet almost all the fans rooting for losses want that exact same thing.

I have no problem pulling back Bledsoe and Adams minutes. I like Adams more than most but he needs to get right and I have no issues with Billy and Hayes. Bledsoe doesn't need experience he needs a reset. I don't see those two moves as having a huge impact on the team. Some might argue it would help us win (especially if NAW is back). I want to see them win though. The problem is how they've been losing. It's always those last few plays. The best thing I could see to finish the season is them going on a run because they were able to make the plays to close out a bunch of games. Don't care about the standing's results but it's the most important thing they need to work on right now imo. If they manage to do it when the games matter more to them, that's even better.

[Stalwart385]

This team is going nowhere with this current roster. A few meaningless wins at the end of a season does close to nothing. Even if we made the play in, we aren't going to be there long.

However, if a shooting big happens to slip a few spots in the draft and we are there to snag him up...that makes a REAL difference.

Saying we should win because it hurts our 'culture' is not seeing the big picture.

I think the big picture missed by many is that this team is much closer to having a winning record than it seems. If they could figure out how to do the right things to close games they are in the playoffs, not just the play in. They need to add a piece to be a real contender, but the 8th pick in the draft that might or might not be good and even then might take 2 years to develop aint it (versus the 10th pick).

It's a long term piece but we already have two highly talented stars that need to figure out the little things in this league. Them figuring out how to win is more important than if the 8th is better two years from now than the 10th.

[MichaelMcNamara]

They also were healthier than they have ever been or likely will ever be again. An optimist could say "we are close and a 5% increase in talent and/or culture would make us a 50 win team"

A pessimist would say, "in a weird season where a lot of teams were missing a lot of guys and we stayed healthy, we still couldnt be good. And with injuries bound to happen next year, we will likely be worse"

The truth is likely in the middle.

[MichaelMcNamara]

Also, we arent drafting a guy 8th or 11th or 13th. That pick is getting traded so dont use that as a base of your argument. The 8th pick and Bledsoe will return better players than the 13th pick and Bledsoe. That is undeniable

[Stalwart385]

Also, we arent drafting a guy 8th or 11th or 13th. That pick is getting traded so dont use that as a base of your argument. The 8th pick and Bledsoe will return better players than the 13th pick and Bledsoe. That is undeniable

The value of the 8th versus the 10th is not as important as our stars and youth learning how to win.

Injuries or not the problem they have needs to be fixed with experience, or at least gain enough experience to know it's unfixable. Which is way too early for them imo.

[MichaelMcNamara]

The value of the 8th versus the 10th is not as important as our stars and youth learning how to win.

Injuries or not the problem they have needs to be fixed with experience, or at least gain enough experience to know it's unfixable. Which is way too early for them imo.

Can you PROVE that? Or is it just something you heard that you want to believe and show some correlation with some past examples?

Because i can show many examples of teams winning late in season with young guys that have no carry over to following years. Do you believe Minny and Washington are setting the stage now to catapault next year too or is that just a narrative reserved for your favorite team as you look for hope.

I cant disprove it and i wont try to but what i do know is that TALENT moves the needle more than anything else. That is what history says is undeniable. Maybe the "learning to win" stuff carries over maybe it doesnt. But having more talent than less definitely helps

[MichaelMcNamara]

And btw, you can believe what you want. I probably said that same thing in the past too when i was younger. But i just take issue with an unprovable statement put forward as gospel and absolute truth. Especially when people say it every year. And acting as if there is zero possibility that pick 8 and an extra loss or two could be better than pick 10 and a random win or two in May