Your concerns are valid, but I want to see Bagley running the floor with Fox. I want to see the Kings run more half court offense through Bagley instead of Willie. I want Bagley's rebounding to start the game and defensive tone set. All of this can be achieved with him starting. What we lose in floor spacing with Bjelica we gain in these areas. Bjelica may also recapture his early season magic if we bring him off the bench.
[Game] Kings @ Pistons 1-19 4PT/7ET
- Thread starter Suicide King
- Start date
Just finished watching the replay a little while ago. I was out of town and got in late. I kept up with the game on ESPN Game Cast as much as I could, but about the middle of the 4th quarter I was driving in the rain on dark, winding roads in NC mountains and could not follow it. I was pretty much resigned that they were going to lose. Imagine my surprise when I stopped for a bit and found they had won on a last minute shot by Buddy.
Watching the game today, it was pretty much what everybody said, boring and ugly at times, Blake acted like a jerk, Grant just made his histrionics worse by harping on them, Kings played poorly or at least shot poorly, but never gave up, exciting finish.
As for whether Buddy double dribbled, it's a judgement call as to when he established possession. Either in the refs opinion (which is all that counts) Buddy hadn't established possession before he dribbled "again" or they didn't see it. Those type of plays, just like a lot of walks, go uncalled all the time in the NBA.
Nice win.
Watching the game today, it was pretty much what everybody said, boring and ugly at times, Blake acted like a jerk, Grant just made his histrionics worse by harping on them, Kings played poorly or at least shot poorly, but never gave up, exciting finish.
As for whether Buddy double dribbled, it's a judgement call as to when he established possession. Either in the refs opinion (which is all that counts) Buddy hadn't established possession before he dribbled "again" or they didn't see it. Those type of plays, just like a lot of walks, go uncalled all the time in the NBA.
Nice win.
Bjelica is not playing well. Bagley is. A demotion and promotion seems in order. What is the worst that can happen if you try it for 10 games? It doesn't work and you revert back and / or you substitute early in the 1st and 3rd quarter and adjust from there. Best case scenario is it sparks both players and we are not barely squeaking by a bad team like the Pistons playing on the second of a back-to-back minus one of their top guys. I can assure you regardless Joerger loves MB3 and is looking for ways to get him higher usage.
I feel we have 2 for sure starters in Buddy and Fox. then you have someone who thinks he must start and if he doesn’t what would that do to his ego (WCS).
Everybody else could be interchangeable for the most part. I have no problem leaving the rotation as it is right now but I really believe after the all star break ala trade deadline timeline we should see the starting lineup adjusted for the better.
Everybody else could be interchangeable for the most part. I have no problem leaving the rotation as it is right now but I really believe after the all star break ala trade deadline timeline we should see the starting lineup adjusted for the better.
He never gripped the ball. He looked towards the rim before he caught it. Hence he never caught it. I don't see it is as debatable or a judgement call. There is no argument to be made he ever came close to securing possession. The Pistons were desperate and sounds like Kayte and Koz tried to make a story out of a non-story. If I truly thought Buddy double-dribbled I would say so because the outcome is not being reversed or replayed regardless.
2 min report. It wasn't a double dribble.
Q4
CNC
Comment:
Q4
00:03.4
Turnover: Double Dribble
Buddy Hield
Hield (SAC) fumbles the inbound pass and subsequently bats the ball to the floor as he attempts to gain control. He picks up the ball with both hands thereafter,
establishing full control, and legally takes one dribble prior to the start of his upward shooting motion.
Q4
CNC
Comment:
Q4
00:03.4
Turnover: Double Dribble
Buddy Hield
Hield (SAC) fumbles the inbound pass and subsequently bats the ball to the floor as he attempts to gain control. He picks up the ball with both hands thereafter,
establishing full control, and legally takes one dribble prior to the start of his upward shooting motion.
Buddy mentioned in the post-game he saw Willie come wide open. The replay shows this. I think it was a blessing he bobbled the pass just long enough to recover and launch because if he didn't he would have passed it to Willie. Willie would have bobbled it probably and even if he caught it cleanly Griffin would have challenged him at the rim. I can only envision what would have happened if Willie was put in that position to catch and finish but I don't think it would have been good!
I mean now that you say that I think you're kinda right but at the time Willie was wiiiide open. Buddy knew he would have had to get it to him quickly so I think he was going for a one motion catch and pass. If it was on target, Willie could have dunked it straight away it looked like to me, but... it would have made me nervous!! Almost less to go wrong if Buddy just gets a shot off, and he did.
Dude, if I said "the sky is blue" you would not say "well that is your judgement" would you?! There is nothing ambiguous about the play! That was my point. Maybe I am getting hung up on semantics but I am not making a judgement call I am observing an obvious situation. The refs did the same per the post game report. Buddy looked away as the pass hit his hands and didn't catch it. That is the only sensible way the play can be perceived and interpreted. C'mon why am I having to clarify the obvious! I can see the other side of the argument if there is one to be made but there isn't. Like I said I didn't hear them but Kayte and Koz are incompetent if they did not describe this situation as simple and cut and dry.
Blob, Whatever “dude”, you’re just trying to be contrarian when I actually agree with your opinion or “judgement”, in this case, about this call, but it is the height of arrogance to assume your opinion, your judgement, is always the correct one. You like to do that. Plenty of people may see that call differently, but the ones that matter, the NBA officials made the “judgement”, that it was not a double dribble and in this case agreeing with your judgement and mine. Next time you may not agree with their judgement, but of course you will insist you’re right and they’re wrong. Most calls aren’t black and white, usually some judgement involved. Anyway, good day to you, sir, this conversation is over from my end.
The NBA released the review and stated it was totally legal. The NBA review said he batted the ball on the inbound pass and then grabbed it with two hands which then became the possession. He then proceeded to take one dribble and shot the winning shot. And you know what that’s exactly what I saw.
I know Blake had a better look at it through those 3 teammates of his than I did from my couch but he’s hard to read because he gets fouled on every shot and also never committed a foul in his career.
I know Blake had a better look at it through those 3 teammates of his than I did from my couch but he’s hard to read because he gets fouled on every shot and also never committed a foul in his career.
I agree. Especially when your shots aren't falling, defense becomes the key to staying in the game and giving yourself a chance. And you know what? Our five potential all-stars (Fox, Buddy, Bogi, Bagley and Giles) are all guys who will take and make game-winning shots. Fox and Bogi have proven that already. Now Buddy. Soon the Dukies. All five have that "I can do it" mentality and the skills (in development) to actually get it done.
Don't be so sensitive when challenged on your opinion, it is not a good look. It is not unusual when I expose someone's point of view as lacking in merit they will go into "meltdown". When it happens it almost always signals I have won the debate. I am just warming up and the other party is throwing in the towel. You should be able to have a civil discussion or disagreement about a benign topic without emotionally unraveling. You took a weak position, I challenged it, then when you tried to defend your position and struggled to do so you blame me. Sorry I am not to blame!
The heart of the matter is this despite you wanting to shift the focus: Could any reasonable person contend Buddy secured possession off the initial touch? The answer is no. There is not multiple interpretations to be made. That is not me being arrogant. It is common sense. Simultaneous to the touch Buddy was looking away from his hands. If there was more than one reasonable interpretation, like when a ref has decided between a charge versus a foul, then you are making judgement call. You are implying a reasonable person could contend Buddy secured possession on the initial touch. You are wrong.
It did not escape my notice you agreed with me. That's fine. That is not the problem I had. That is irrelevant. You said the refs made a judgement call. There was nothing equivocal or ambiguous to "judge". Don't turn this around and say I am being arrogant. I am not being arrogant. I am being sensible. You are the one not debating in good faith.
The heart of the matter is this despite you wanting to shift the focus: Could any reasonable person contend Buddy secured possession off the initial touch? The answer is no. There is not multiple interpretations to be made. That is not me being arrogant. It is common sense. Simultaneous to the touch Buddy was looking away from his hands. If there was more than one reasonable interpretation, like when a ref has decided between a charge versus a foul, then you are making judgement call. You are implying a reasonable person could contend Buddy secured possession on the initial touch. You are wrong.
It did not escape my notice you agreed with me. That's fine. That is not the problem I had. That is irrelevant. You said the refs made a judgement call. There was nothing equivocal or ambiguous to "judge". Don't turn this around and say I am being arrogant. I am not being arrogant. I am being sensible. You are the one not debating in good faith.
Last edited: