The Finals

Who wins, and in how many?

  • lakers in 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • lakers in 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Heat in 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Heat in 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .
#31
If you want to believe that those foul calls made the difference, you go right ahead. My point of view on this is, admittedly, pretty binary: if you are subject to some questionable calls, and you lose by two possessions or less, and you want to blame the refs? Sure, I'll hear you out. If you lose by double-digits, you're just whining.
Smh that’s not how it works they can control whole momentum shifts by giving calls out. Bam was having a good game got two fouls that should never be called and sat. He came back in and wasn’t the same again wouldn’t attack wouldn’t challenge. They did the same crap to Denver when Denver almost gave up that big lead. Rondo and LA just fouled continuously and weren’t called for it TNT refused to show replays of the strips.

A game doesn’t have to end within 5 for the refs to have made an impact
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#33
Smh that’s not how it works they can control whole momentum shifts by giving calls out. Bam was having a good game got two fouls that should never be called and sat. He came back in and wasn’t the same again wouldn’t attack wouldn’t challenge. They did the same crap to Denver when Denver almost gave up that big lead. Rondo and LA just fouled continuously and weren’t called for it TNT refused to show replays of the strips.

A game doesn’t have to end within 5 for the refs to have made an impact
Aiight, Bawse. Y'all got it.
 
#34
If you want to believe that those foul calls made the difference, you go right ahead. My point of view on this is, admittedly, pretty binary: if you are subject to some questionable calls, and you lose by two possessions or less, and you want to blame the refs? Sure, I'll hear you out. If you lose by double-digits, you're just whining.

 
Last edited:

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#38
It's not really an average type of year in any regards in respect to the NBA season. So there is that.
And there was so much change in rosters last summer too. Instead of a few mega teams more teams created two star situations two of which in the Clipps and the Rockets are a little janky on paper. The Lakers were always set up as the team that had the depth and the better fit. Miami came in with a surprising amount of experience and ended up playing teams that weren't really seasoned or didn't have the tools to match up with the other team doing the best at exploiting the gaps in the modern NBA's rules. The Lakers being the other. The difference is the Lakers have the size to take away that pick and roll lob game the Heat were exploiting as part of the catch and shoot drive from the 3 point line stuff that has obliterated any and all strategy out of the game.

Miami more than ever has to just keep shooting. They've been great at knowing who they are so in the modern NBA you always have a shooters chance. The Knicks beat Wilt/Logo in a very similar era. Keep shooting!
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#39
I don’t know man the product is wearing me out and I’m a die hard fan

Just last week the final two minutes of a game took 15 minutes to finish
Hang in there. This years postseason has been missing a lot of star action and hopefully by next season we get to watch everyone healthy and it will make it that much more entertaining
 
#40
It's not really an average type of year in any regards in respect to the NBA season. So there is that.
Yeah, I only watch a couple of Kings game and haven't watched any of the playoffs - and I've watched most of the finals over the last 10 years. I just wasn't interested this season, and it's clear I'm not alone. For me, it's not about the "product" on the floor; I'm just not excited about the audience-less sport at this time. I think I'll be back on board next year.
 
#41
And there was so much change in rosters last summer too. Instead of a few mega teams more teams created two star situations two of which in the Clipps and the Rockets are a little janky on paper. The Lakers were always set up as the team that had the depth and the better fit. Miami came in with a surprising amount of experience and ended up playing teams that weren't really seasoned or didn't have the tools to match up with the other team doing the best at exploiting the gaps in the modern NBA's rules. The Lakers being the other. The difference is the Lakers have the size to take away that pick and roll lob game the Heat were exploiting as part of the catch and shoot drive from the 3 point line stuff that has obliterated any and all strategy out of the game.

Miami more than ever has to just keep shooting. They've been great at knowing who they are so in the modern NBA you always have a shooters chance. The Knicks beat Wilt/Logo in a very similar era. Keep shooting!
I like Miami and I'm a huge Butler fan. But there is a reason that superstars win titles. The Lakers can play big or small, which takes away any strengths an opponent may have. Then having the best players on the court is a checkmate. There is no Steph Curry and KD to put up against AD and Lebron this year and it has knocked some of the suspense out of playoffs.
 
#42
Yeah, I only watch a couple of Kings game and haven't watched any of the playoffs - and I've watched most of the finals over the last 10 years. I just wasn't interested this season, and it's clear I'm not alone. For me, it's not about the "product" on the floor; I'm just not excited about the audience-less sport at this time. I think I'll be back on board next year.
For me, there has also been a little too much basketball all at once with no breaks. The NBA has essentially been doing playoff basketball every single day since the end of July. It's hard to stay emotionally engaged for that long.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#53
Didn't Game 2, a game that could not have possibly decided anything, also go head-to-head against a winner-take-all elimination game in the MLB playoffs, a college football game, and the French Open, three events it's never had to compete against, for ratings? Let's not insult people's intelligence by pretending like these things happen in a vacuum.
 
#54
Didn't Game 2, a game that could not have possibly decided anything, also go head-to-head against a winner-take-all elimination game in the MLB playoffs, a college football game, and the French Open, three events it's never had to compete against, for ratings? Let's not insult people's intelligence by pretending like these things happen in a vacuum.
That makes it worse since they can't compete with other "lesser" sports. NFL, MLB and NBA are supposed to be the popular leagues with the NBA 2nd.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#55
That makes it worse since they can't compete with other "lesser" sports. NFL, MLB and NBA are supposed to be the popular leagues with the NBA 2nd.
What kind of reductive, ignorant reasoning is that? Game 2 still beat all those other events, and it wasn't particularly close; it's just that they didn't get the numbers that they usually get, when people aren't watching those other events, instead. The game still won its timeslot, and it won the "key" demo. That the Finals have to deal with counterprogramming that it's literally never had to deal with before (There's also been some fairly important stuff going on the news, that's been commanding people's attention, in case you weren't aware), and still finish Number One in its timeslot, is a point in its favor, not to its detriment. To pretend otherwise is to be completely disingenuous.
 
#57
I stopped watching the nba finals....just don’t give a damn. Many of my buddies also havent watched. Various reasons for each of us. Some refuse to watch because of the politics. Some are On to other stuff. Some are just not into watching Lebron....he’s a turn off.
That is a good answer. Multiple reasons.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#58
That is a good answer. Multiple reasons.
I mean, it's a good answer, if you find tautologies to be good answers, in general. The difficulty lies in peoples' tendencies to project their motives onto other people, and to want to believe that other people are not watching for the same reasons why they're not watching.
 
#59
I mean, it's a good answer, if you find tautologies to be good answers, in general. The difficulty lies in peoples' tendencies to project their motives onto other people, and to want to believe that other people are not watching for the same reasons why they're not watching.
But he didn't give an either or answer. Simply stated reasons some of his friends aren't watching. And gave several reasons unrelated to each other. If people aren't watching, there are probably numerous reasons why individuals are choosing not to. His answer was a good one because it acknowledged that there are multiple reasons people he knows aren't watching. How could that be taken as projecting why he is not, if he isn't, as why they are not?
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#60
But he didn't give an either or answer. Simply stated reasons some of his friends aren't watching. And gave several reasons unrelated to each other. If people aren't watching, there are probably numerous reasons why individuals are choosing not to. His answer was a good one because it acknowledged that there are multiple reasons people he knows aren't watching. How could that be taken as projecting why he is not, if he isn't, as why they are not?
You'll have to pardon me if I'm skeptical of people who present anecdotes as if they were data. But, even giving the benefit of the doubt (which I have no particular inclination to do), I feel like it begs some follow-up questions, because I don't take it as a given that those are actually "multiple" reasons: "Some are on to other stuff..." What they moved on to isn't important, but moving on to other stuff is not a reason, it's an outcome. Why now? What's changed between when you were watching and now, that made you decide to move on? "LeBron is a turn-off." So, does that mean that they haven't watched the Finals since 2010? And, if they have watched the Finals in the last decade, what's changed? It's not like LeBron just started being LeBron, this season. What's LeBron doing now, that he wasn't doing, say... five years ago?

But, all that aside, saying that there are "multiple reasons" why people stopped watching is a tautology, and tautologies are only good answers for people who like tautologies: it's making a declarative statement about something, that does not have to be pointed out to reasonable people, because it's self-evident. The only people who need to have it explained to them that there are multiple reasons why people aren't watching are the people who think that there is a singular reason why people aren't watching. Which is, to say, simple-minded people.