[NBA] Comments that don't warrant a thread (DEC)

[Srzly]

Zion is a top 12 player when he’s playing if you can get him without dealing Fox you do it. You win championships with star players there’s no other way around it I’d easily send NO Keegan, DD, Ellis, Carter and picks

Unless I’m misunderstanding or Kings are getting more than Zion, the starting lineup is:

Fox
Monk
Heurter
Zion
Sabonis

6th man: Isaac Jones/Trey Lyles

I don’t see that team winning much of anything, I don’t see the fit with Sabonis, and you have almost zero defense. He is a good player when he plays but even if healthy I don’t see this improving the team in the short term and you’re giving up your future for it.

 

[Joshyjosh31]

I remain unconvinced he will be there for us in the playoffs. I am not debating he's a great player but he has done nothing to show he can play a full season with any consistency. Also not sure he's an ideal fit with Fox and Sabonis but I understand you make it work. My contention is he will miss half the games.

He played 70 and 61 games before this year if he’s giving us 55+ games I’m trading for him you never are able to get guys like Zion you just have to go for it. If he’s there in the playoffs you compete with anyone if he’s not then you have Fox/sabonis/monk hold the ship

Unless I’m misunderstanding or Kings are getting more than Zion, the starting lineup is:

Fox
Monk
Heurter
Zion
Sabonis

6th man: Isaac Jones/Trey Lyles

I don’t see that team winning much of anything, I don’t see the fit with Sabonis, and you have almost zero defense. He is a good player when he plays but even if healthy I don’t see this improving the team in the short term and you’re giving up your future for it.

Any trade with Zion is probably happening after the season so we’d have players from deadline trades assuming it’s not just cash considerations. If we land either DFS/Cam this year that’s already a start on defensive players

You get Zion with Fox and Sabonis and figure the rest of it out that’s a lot of talent Zion is a monster and would be our best player

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

In 5 career seasons Zion has played less than 2 ½ seasons of games. Seems like a Greg Oden situation to me.

I get that the Kings can't be complacent and assume we'll automatically be better next year; and that they have to demonstrate competitive credibility soon in order to convince Fox to resign. But if Zion's health doesn't improve, that could be another lost decade

 

[pdxKingsFan]

In 5 career seasons Zion has played less than 2 ½ seasons of games. Seems like a Greg Oden situation to me.

I get that the Kings can't be complacent and assume we'll automatically be better next year; and that they have to demonstrate competitive credibility soon in order to convince Fox to resign. But if Zion's health doesn't improve, that could be another lost decade

He averaged 46 which includes the covid period so he is doing slightly better than half a season average but the point stands that there is no reason to assume this guy can stay healthy or that you can make him a centerpoint of your team.

nvm bad math

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

He averaged 46 which includes the covid period so he is doing slightly better than half a season average but the point stands that there is no reason to assume this guy can stay healthy or that you can make him a centerpoint of your team.

He took a year off in the middle, I count that against his health

 

[pdxKingsFan]

He took a year off in the middle, I count that against his health

I apologize, when I went to BB Reference yesterday I somehow missed that empty season when it is clear as day today. I doubt they changed their formatting and yet it is right there.



Guessing I looked at 5 years and subtracted the current season from the count. So just under 37 games played per season.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

To make an extreme suggestion, we could move the three-point line back 5.25 feet to 29 feet. Eliminate the corner-three exception, the line would be a literal circle, and in this case would intersect the sideline just a hint closer to the baseline than the free throw line.

This would make a lot of people angry, as offenses are designed to utilize the corner three, and a corner two is a much different thing. In fact, a lot of modern offense - designed to get high-efficiency jump shots - would be nearly useless. But I imagine it would make Slim very happy (he could be happier, but we're not eliminating the three-point shot altogether in the near future in any imaginable timeline).

Even if Adam Silver banned the 3 pointer for some weird reason, it probably wouldn't result in an immediate reversion to the golden age of big men.

 

[SacTownKid]

Meh. Ask ten people, "Why are the NBA's ratings down?" and you'll get eight different answers. Hell, you yourself literally just implied that the declining ratings could be attributed to two things that had nothing to do with what @fansinceday1 said.

Nope, that's exactly what I was referring too. A physical game restricts teams abilities to just simply launch since you can potentially physically impede movment away from the basket. I watched a video on YT and it was pretty compelling when you compare the recent spike in launching garbage vs. the viewership. I mean, if WE feel like the game is getting out of hand then it's likely real to others as well.

 

[SacTownKid]

Zion is a top 12 player when he’s playing if you can get him without dealing Fox you do it. You win championships with star players there’s no other way around it I’d easily send NO Keegan, DD, Ellis, Carter and picks

Sad to say, you don't touch that guy with a 10 foot pole. Not now, and good luck to them getting anything close to that package.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

Nope, that's exactly what I was referring too. A physical game restricts teams abilities to just simply launch since you can potentially physically impede movment away from the basket. I watched a video on YT and it was pretty compelling when you compare the recent spike in launching garbage vs. the viewership. I mean, if WE feel like the game is getting out of hand then it's likely real to others as well.

Wow, you watched a whole youtube video? That is a pretty compelling argument

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Even if Adam Silver banned the 3 pointer for some weird reason, it probably wouldn't result in an immediate reversion to the golden age of big men.

No, but it would change the game a lot. Teams would stop targeting threes because there would be no artificial bump in efficiency at 23.75 feet - efficiency would simply drop off the further you got from the basket. Defenses would start giving up the three and pack the paint more. Spacing would change a lot.

 

[SacTownKid]

Wow, you watched a whole youtube video? That is a pretty compelling argument

Actually, it was, lol. In fact it's one of many. Even the mainstream media seems to be pouncing on the idea. While it's likely not the only reason, it may very well be contributing.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

No, but it would change the game a lot. Teams would stop targeting threes because there would be no artificial bump in efficiency at 23.75 feet - efficiency would simply drop off the further you got from the basket. Defenses would start giving up the three and pack the paint more. Spacing would change a lot.

Sure, but it took about 30 years for teams to adjust to the 3 point shot, 10-15 years for player talent development, and 10-15 years more for coaching to embrace it. It would probably take a similar amount of time for teams to optimally play with a similar rule shift. Post ups and mid range jump shots wouldn't suddenly appear.

(The NBA has had the 3 point shot for 45 years, the NBA was missing the 3 point shot for 30 years. I know this board skews older, but how many people here have really firm memories of a time before 3s? Mike Brown was 9 when the shift happened, and he's one of the older head coaches in the league)

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Nope, that's exactly what I was referring too. A physical game restricts teams abilities to just simply launch since you can potentially physically impede movment away from the basket. I watched a video on YT and it was pretty compelling when you compare the recent spike in launching garbage vs. the viewership. I mean, if WE feel like the game is getting out of hand then it's likely real to others as well.

Correlation =/= causation.

You're free to believe that that's what the reason is, and to signal boost YouTube videos that co-sign your beliefs as well, but I doubt that you could actually produce any hard evidence that demonstrates causality. Like, your argument is basically, "The NBA sucks because there's too much of [something I personally dislike] & the solution is more of [something I like]. I unilaterally decided this is why no one watches. Declining ratings prove I'm correct." Mind you that I am saying this as someone who has a 20+ year documented history on this message board as having total antipathy for the three-point shot. I would be happier than a pig in slop if the three-pointer were eradicated tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that I believe that spray-and-pray is the reason why the ratings are down. The plural of anecdote is not data.

 

[SacTownKid]

Correlation =/= causation.

You're free to believe that that's what the reason is, and to signal boost YouTube videos that co-sign your beliefs as well, but I doubt that you could actually produce any hard evidence that demonstrates causality. Like, your argument is basically, "The NBA sucks because there's too much of [something I personally dislike] & the solution is more of [something I like]. I unilaterally decided this is why no one watches. Declining ratings prove I'm correct." Mind you that I am saying this as someone who has a 20+ year documented history on this message board as having total antipathy for the three-point shot. I would be happier than a pig in slop if the three-pointer were eradicated tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that I believe that spray-and-pray is the reason why the ratings are down. The plural of anecdote is not data.

Haha, are people talking about 3 pointers being an issue? I didn't pull it out of thin air. It's currently a widely discussed topic when it comes to basketball INCLUDING the post I commented on. I didn't say it was a full proof reason either, hence the word "probably". The figures suggest a downturn as 3's have gone up, that's all.

 

[SacTownKid]

Sure, but it took about 30 years for teams to adjust to the 3 point shot, 10-15 years for player talent development, and 10-15 years more for coaching to embrace it. It would probably take a similar amount of time for teams to optimally play with a similar rule shift. Post ups and mid range jump shots wouldn't suddenly appear.

(The NBA has had the 3 point shot for 45 years, the NBA was missing the 3 point shot for 30 years. I know this board skews older, but how many people here have really firm memories of a time before 3s? Mike Brown was 9 when the shift happened, and he's one of the older head coaches in the league)

30 years to adjust? Charles Barkley had a very interesting take back in the day. As soon as hand checking was eliminated you all of a sudden had some differences when it came to the MVP award.

https://www.espn.com/nba/history/awards/_/id/33

The two names that stand out once hand checking was eliminated are Curry and Nash. Never before had the archetype of a Curry or Nash won the award. Let alone back to back.

From google:

The NBA removed the "hand checking" rule before the start of the 2004-2005 season, with the primary goal of increasing scoring and creating a faster pace of play by allowing offensive players more freedom to dribble and move without excessive defensive contact.

Key points about the hand checking rule change:

• Reason for removal: The league wanted to make the game more offensive-friendly by reducing the physicality defenders could use to disrupt ball handlers.
  
  
• Impact on the game: Eliminating hand checking significantly opened up the offensive game, leading to higher scoring averages.
  
  
• When it happened: The rule change took place before the start of the 2004-2005 NBA season.

 

[Tetsujin]

He played 70 and 61 games before this year if he’s giving us 55+ games I’m trading for him you never are able to get guys like Zion you just have to go for it. If he’s there in the playoffs you compete with anyone if he’s not then you have Fox/sabonis/monk hold the ship




Any trade with Zion is probably happening after the season so we’d have players from deadline trades assuming it’s not just cash considerations. If we land either DFS/Cam this year that’s already a start on defensive players

You get Zion with Fox and Sabonis and figure the rest of it out that’s a lot of talent Zion is a monster and would be our best player

Zion shoots free throws like Shaq and is actually afraid of the three point line. Couple that with the fact he's burnt toast defensively and it's hard to argue he's better than Demar Derozan, let alone Fox or Sabonis, even if Zion magically never got hurt again.

 

[SacTownKid]

Zion shoots free throws like Shaq and is actually afraid of the three point line. Couple that with the fact he's burnt toast defensively and it's hard to argue he's better than Demar Derozan, let alone Fox or Sabonis, even if Zion magically never got hurt again.

Yeah, the only way you get a Zion is if the current combo of stars fall flat and you want to alter the makeup of your star core by changing out of the G or C position to F. Addition on top of addition scoring wise does nothing unless the Kings fail to transition to playoff ball again and Zion is a better option during that part of the year.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Sure, but it took about 30 years for teams to adjust to the 3 point shot, 10-15 years for player talent development, and 10-15 years more for coaching to embrace it. It would probably take a similar amount of time for teams to optimally play with a similar rule shift. Post ups and mid range jump shots wouldn't suddenly appear.

(The NBA has had the 3 point shot for 45 years, the NBA was missing the 3 point shot for 30 years. I know this board skews older, but how many people here have really firm memories of a time before 3s? Mike Brown was 9 when the shift happened, and he's one of the older head coaches in the league)

I think adjustments would happen a lot faster. It's true that a talent pool had to build up, but I don't think that was the primary reason for the slow adoption. There was just an old-school bias against adopting "newfangled" ideas - the absolute pain involved in convincing old-school management/coaching that shot efficiency was not only a real thing but actually mattered, like A LOT, was enormous.

Just going in decade-sized jumps, let's look at the percentage of shots that were threes over time:
1985 - 3%
1995 - 19% (+16)
2005 - 20% (+1)
2015 - 27% (+7)
2025 - 42% (+15)

And compare with 2PT EFG% and 3PT EFG% in the same span
1985 - .499 .423
1995 - .491 .539
2005 - .470 .534
2015 - .485 .521
2025 - .541 .539

So there was an initial adjustment in the first decade or so, which had a lot to do with increasing the talent pool for deep shooting, and then a serious stagnation between 1995 and 2015 where three-point shots were way more valuable than twos, but the league just didn't adjust. Now, over the last ten years, the league has adjusted - in fact so far that perhaps the pendulum will soon need to swing the other way. The upswing in 2PT% is pretty remarkable here and presumably has to do with teams opening up the paint to instead guard against the more-valuable three (Sacramento Kings excepted, it would seem).

But I think it's fair to say that now teams care so very much more about analytics that eliminating the three point shot entirely would cause an immediate and drastic change in both shot distribution and defensive schemes. We're just so much better at doing that stuff now, and all the management/coaches are on board. Adjustments would take months, not decades. I'd be willing to bet on it, but the experiment won't be run, so there's no point.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

I think adjustments would happen a lot faster. It's true that a talent pool had to build up, but I don't think that was the primary reason for the slow adoption. There was just an old-school bias against adopting "newfangled" ideas - the absolute pain involved in convincing old-school management/coaching that shot efficiency was not only a real thing but actually mattered, like A LOT, was enormous.



But I think it's fair to say that now teams care so very much more about analytics that eliminating the three point shot entirely would cause an immediate and drastic change in both shot distribution and defensive schemes. We're just so much better at doing that stuff now, and all the management/coaches are on board. Adjustments would take months, not decades. I'd be willing to bet on it, but the experiment won't be run, so there's no point.

I do agree with this, I think the primary reason it took so long for the 3 to catch was that NBA coaches were afraid of being laughed out of the league for trying something unorthodox (pulling a Paul Westhead.) Now that coaching is more results focused, it should be faster to find optimal strategies. The primary constraint would be the talent pipeline. Also agree that it's never going to happen,

(where I think I disagree with some is that I think the NBA is far more entertaining than it was in the 90s)

 

[Tetsujin]

Is the Cavs-Nets score real?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Haha, are people talking about 3 pointers being an issue? I didn't pull it out of thin air. It's currently a widely discussed topic when it comes to basketball INCLUDING the post I commented on. I didn't say it was a full proof reason either, hence the word "probably". The figures suggest a downturn as 3's have gone up, that's all.

Okay hoss, you got it.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Milwaukee Bucks 14-11 (6-0 East Group B) @ Oklahoma City Thunder 20-5 (5-1 West Group B)
NBA Emirates Cup Final
17 December 2024, 5:30pm PT/8:30pm ET
T-Mobile Arena, Las Vegas, Nevada​

Game Preview:
Postseason Feel For Thunder, Bucks in Cup Final (NBA.com)

Availability:
Broadcast: ABC
Radio: ESPN Radio

Box Score (via ESPN.com)

Team Homepage(s): Bucks Thunder
Twitter: Bucks Thunder
Instagram: Bucks Thunder
YouTube: Bucks Thunder


Injury Report (as of 8pm ET):
Bucks:
Khris Middleton - OUT (undisclosed illness)

Thunder:
Osumane Dieng - OUT (finger)
Alex Ducas - OUT (back)
Adam Flagler - OUT (finger)
Chet Holmgren - OUT (hip)
Jaylin Williams - OUT (hamstring)
Nikola Topić - OUT FOR SEASON - (hamstring)


Referee Assignments:
Josh Tiven (#58 - Crew Chief), Karl Lane (#77), Justin Van Duyne (#64)





Mister Slim Says: I reserve the right to split this into its own thread, if the game generates enough discourse.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I don't believe that three was good.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Lopez with the, "My bad, I don't know my own strength (wink)" loose ball foul.

 

[iowamcnabb]

Okc plays with force on both ends. Williams with his drives and SGA with his foul hunting. The rest of the guys are defense and grit. Kings have to fill out their roster with those type of players

 

[coolhandluke]

OKC shooting 1-17 from three and still in the game. Their effort level is special.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Welp, I guess I'm about to find out whether or not my infatuation with Kat Dennings is stronger than my dislike of Tim Allen.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

OKC shooting 1-17 from three and still in the game. Their effort level is special.

It's something, that's for sure. Rebounds are a push, and they only have a slight edge in the paint. Virtually no turnovers is a huge difference.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Fans counting down Giannis' free throws is diabolical.