***Official NBA Thread***

[OverratedSanity]

Makes comebacks more likely late in games. It does also slow things down to an unbearable crawl at times, but it can add to the tension in deep playoff series. Probably the greatest clutch shot in NBA history (the Ray allen 3) wouldn't have been possible without it.

Not sure personally its worth the tradeoff of how slow it can get tbh, but I doubt they'll change anything anytime soon.

 

[Teja.]

I wonder how much the rules/implementation have been influenced by the need to stretch a 48 min game out for 3+ hours for maximum TV/ad revenue..

 

[nightprowler10]

Yeah I understand why they do it, but I don’t really understand why the rules encourage it.

OS alluded to it but yeah it helps create blockbuster moments. My team has historically been terrible at execution down the stretch pretty much since MJ retired, so I really hate it and it has lead to some hair loss, but I don't hate it enough to stop watching.

 

[Teja.]

On the topic of the pace of the game, as a noob, I like watching the Mavericks play because Luka is their main ball handler and he plays at this really deliberate and slow pace, even when beating defenders or charging with the ball which allows me to actually follow the action.

It's definitely a game where it's easy to get lost at following the different team strategies, individual actions and different possible foul situations. The WWE style commentary definitely doesn't help. Would be great if the commentators could break down team plays in basic terms more often instead of repeating for the 1000x time that Luka loves playing with his food and CP3 is one of the most intelligent men who has ever lived. When they rarely do explain the reasoning for a play, it actually is fascinating and instantly makes stuff clearer.

The more I watch, the more I feel like there is a conflict between the reality of basketball being an extremely team driven sport compared to the marketing and commentary constantly pushing it as a soap opera about the individual battles between a handful of great but dramatic players.

 

[Anil]

Nikola has done it again!????

 

[Uppercut]

The more I watch, the more I feel like there is a conflict between the reality of basketball being an extremely team driven sport compared to the marketing and commentary constantly pushing it as a soap opera about the individual battles between a handful of great but dramatic players.

Yeah I'm noticing this too, it's not like I was expecting. Without knowing the sport at all I got the impression that having one ATG player was a game-breaker, and it doesn't feel like that at all. The Celtics especially seem to be competing as well as anyone without a star, at least not one that I can spot.

 

[duffer]

Yeah I'm noticing this too, it's not like I was expecting. Without knowing the sport at all I got the impression that having one ATG player was a game-breaker, and it doesn't feel like that at all.

See Denver Nuggets this season. Only so much you can do with no help

 

[Uppercut]

See Denver Nuggets this season. Only so much you can do with no help

Why is the coverage of it so individualistic though? Just Americans being Americans?

 

[duffer]

Why is the coverage of it so individualistic though? Just Americans being Americans?

NBA is a 'stars' league, the NFL a 'team' league or something. The powers to be chose to market it like this. See: Michael Jordan

 

[Teja.]

Yeah I'm noticing this too, it's not like I was expecting. Without knowing the sport at all I got the impression that having one ATG player was a game-breaker, and it doesn't feel like that at all. The Celtics especially seem to be competing as well as anyone without a star, at least not one that I can spot.

Luka is far and away the best player in the Mavs and the only excellent one. The first game of this series between Mavs and Suns, Luka was playing a ridiculously heliocentric game where he was taking the most unlikely shots and only passing after already dribbling for 20 seconds. He hit an incredible % of his shots and scored 45 points but the Suns absolutely routed the Mavs. They were like 12 points up in the first few minutes of the game and only won by '7' because they were chilling in the last quarter because Dallas was nowhere close. He hit 15/30 overall shots and 4/11 3 Pointers this game and his team still got routed.

The fourth game, he had an absolutely terrible shooting game. He hit 1 out of 10 attempted 3P and 9/25 overall but he radically changed how he was playing and was looking to pass the ball early and/or set up his team mates a lot more with awesome open 3P assists and the Mavs routed the Suns despite him having a terrible shooting night.

It blew my mind how an elite player having an outstanding individual shooting performance paled in comparison to him having a terrible shooting night but having a gameplan involving setting up the rest of the team (of much worse players) for more offense.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah I'm noticing this too, it's not like I was expecting. Without knowing the sport at all I got the impression that having one ATG player was a game-breaker, and it doesn't feel like that at all. The Celtics especially seem to be competing as well as anyone without a star, at least not one that I can spot.

Generally when people say you need a top tier star to win, its not win playoff series, its winning the whole thing. A team winning the championship without one of those guys hasn't happened since 2004. It matters more and more the deeper you go in the playoffs. Phoenix might break that if they win this year.

 

[Uppercut]

Generally when people say you need a top tier star to win, its not win playoff series, its winning the whole thing. A team winning the championship without one of those guys hasn't happened since 2004. It matters more and more the deeper you go in the playoffs. Phoenix might break that if they win this year.

Ah, how many top tier stars are there? Surely the league only has a handful of players better than Paul/Booker? Is it just that there's a huuuge gap between Paul/Booker level and Jokic level?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Interesting convo, thanks.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ah, how many top tier stars are there? Surely the league only has a handful of players better than Paul/Booker? Is it just that there's a huuuge gap between Paul/Booker level and Jokic level?

I'd say around 10 or so (and that's optimistic) if we're counting kawhi? For the most part I dont think it's about the gap in raw production between Booker and a true top tier superstar like a durant or kawhi or steph, but the difference in defensive attention they command is very sizeable and will never really show up on the stat-sheet. Even if their shot isn't falling they'll usually have a big positive effect on how the team's offense is doing. Booker/Paul are great too, but they're not really changing the way the other team is guarding them quite to that same extent imo.

Phoenix/Boston are so good all round that they can still win (Suns favourites for me) but everything is harder when you dont have one superstar out there.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The WWE style commentary definitely doesn't help. Would be great if the commentators could break down team plays in basic terms more often instead of repeating for the 1000x time that Luka loves playing with his food and CP3 is one of the most intelligent men who has ever lived. When they rarely do explain the reasoning for a play, it actually is fascinating and instantly makes stuff clearer.

This is 100% true. Basketball comfortably has the worst commentators of any major sport I follow. Even the handful of good ones are merely amazing hype men. People who give cricket commentators **** haven't really experienced true pain.

 

[Teja.]

I'd say around 10 or so (and that's optimistic) if we're counting kawhi? For the most part I dont think it's about the gap in raw production between Booker and a true top tier superstar like a durant or kawhi or steph, but the difference in defensive attention they command is very sizeable and will never really show up on the stat-sheet. Even if their shot isn't falling they'll usually have a big positive effect on how the team's offense is doing. Booker/Paul are great too, but they're not really changing the way the other team is guarding them quite to that same extent imo.

Phoenix/Boston are so good all round that they can still win (Suns favourites for me) but everything is harder when you dont have one superstar out there.

I agree 100% on Booker but don't think the same applies to CP3. On his day, CP3 plays beyond superstar level IMO and engages the other team completely. The 14/14 shots perfect game in Round 1 and the burst in game 2 Q4 to destroy the Mavs were inspired performances. It's just that he is liable to have the occasional absolute stinker in very big games and the fact that he is 37 and often is only deployed for specific quarters which hold him back from being like top 5-10 material for me.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd say around 10 or so (and that's optimistic) if we're counting kawhi? For the most part I dont think it's about the gap in raw production between Booker and a true top tier superstar like a durant or kawhi or steph, but the difference in defensive attention they command is very sizeable and will never really show up on the stat-sheet. Even if their shot isn't falling they'll usually have a big positive effect on how the team's offense is doing. Booker/Paul are great too, but they're not really changing the way the other team is guarding them quite to that same extent imo.

Phoenix/Boston are so good all round that they can still win (Suns favourites for me) but everything is harder when you dont have one superstar out there.

That's interesting, thanks.

Suns/Celtics are the teams I've been wanting to win games. Most fans seem to get into a team because they have a star player they really like. For some reason in my head it's too boring to win by having the best players.

Also all of the Cards stuff I follow turns into Suns stuff when the NFL season ends, and I get caught up in that.

 

[andruid]

That's interesting, thanks.

Suns/Celtics are the teams I've been wanting to win games. Most fans seem to get into a team because they have a star player they really like. For some reason in my head it's too boring to win by having the best players.

Also all of the Cards stuff I follow turns into Suns stuff when the NFL season ends, and I get caught up in that.

Apparently last year's NBA finals had really bad ratings, what with the teams involved being small market teams

 

[Uppercut]

Apparently last year's NBA finals had really bad ratings, what with the teams involved being small market teams

If you tweet that, hundreds of Suns fans will emerge from nearby hedges to angrily explain that Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the US.

 

[Anil]

I'd say around 10 or so (and that's optimistic) if we're counting kawhi? For the most part I dont think it's about the gap in raw production between Booker and a true top tier superstar like a durant or kawhi or steph, but the difference in defensive attention they command is very sizeable and will never really show up on the stat-sheet. Even if their shot isn't falling they'll usually have a big positive effect on how the team's offense is doing. Booker/Paul are great too, but they're not really changing the way the other team is guarding them quite to that same extent imo.

Phoenix/Boston are so good all round that they can still win (Suns favourites for me) but everything is harder when you dont have one superstar out there.

i don't know...you don't think booker is a superstar in the league at this point?