2018-2019 NBA Season Thread

[TheMaus2]

A lot of this rhetoric was said about the Warriors last year, and they took out the Rockets in 7. It's a bit fluky given that CP3 was out for the crucial games, but the Warriors have the best starting five on the floor with or without KD, and they've shown they can perform

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by thehef

I find myself in the odd position of defending the Lakers, who I despise. However, that conclusion - the Lakers getting swept 4-0 in the finals - is seriously missing context, as the '89 Lakers who swept thru the Western Conference undefeated, were missing their starting backcourt for most of the finals (Byron Scott missed the entire series; Magic went down midway thru Game Two). Simply put: The Lakers who coasted through the regular season, only to turn it on in the postseason, were not the same Lakers who got swept by Detroit. To reach that conclusion is being completely ignorant of context, IMO.

Ehh, that's not a conclusion, "a judgment or decision reached by reasoning," but a statement of fact. Also, let's supply some context for the Lakers getting swept. Their biggest loss of the series was with a healthy Magic in game one by 12 points. In game two, Magic played 29 minutes and LA went down 2-0. So, the Lakers were already in deep sh*t heading home down 2-0, as teams lose playoff series 93% of the time in that scenario. Oh, and more context, these Pistons won 6 more games than any other team in 1989 and would win the title again the following year.

Two injured starters for the 1989 Lakers? Golden State is expected to be missing Durant until game 3 at the earliest and Boogie, who played all of 30 games with his new team during the regular season, will be tasked with overcoming his latest injury, shaking off the rust from another extended absence, and trying to continue his integration into his new team in the worst possible situation, an NBA Final. Oh, so much context!!!

So far, Cousins hasn't exactly helped the Warriors much. Boogie had a negative net rating in those 30 games and also in his lone playoff appearance, so, jeez, I hope he plays a lot.

Toronto are the real story of this year's playoff coming back from their own extreme peril, down 2-0 to the best team and defense in the NBA, and winning 4 straight under those dire circumstances. That's some true grit. Golden State, on the other hand, has series wins over three good but soft teams sporting the 21st, 17th, and 16th best defenses in the NBA. As stated before, with home court advantage and the best player, Kawhi Leonard, I like Toronto's chances.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

I haven't changed my avatar in 17 years, so that ain't happening, and I wouldn't be interested in changing yours either. Also, I'm not especially fond of either of the Finals contestants, though Kawhi is amazeballs. Not much of an incentive.

I triple dog dare ya.

[darkhorse]

I can see where this is heading. No thanks.

[Rizon]

A Raptors fan apparently set off fireworks outside the Warriors hotel at 3 a.m.

Pretty funny. Too bad the fan didn't realize loud bangs in the middle of the night are a pretty common occurrence out here in Oaktown, so it doesn't wake us up.

[Rizon]

I think Game 1 will set the tone. Barring major injuries ... if Raptors win, Warriors win series in 7. If Warriors win, Warriors win series in 4or5 with Curry MVP (and 30+ points each game).

Now, let's talk about Drake ...

[darkhorse]

The Warriors faced off against the Raptors twice this season losing in OT in Toronto and getting whacked by 20 on their home court. Keep up the good work, Golden State!

[TheMaus2]

both of those games have to be taken with a grain of salt because these teams look really different than they did earlier in the year tbh

[RchW]

On the train to the game.😃

[thehef]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Ehh, that's not a conclusion, "a judgment or decision reached by reasoning," but a statement of fact.

It *is* a statement of fact that the Lakers got swept 4-0. The "conclusion" by you (correct me if I'm wrong) was that although the Lakers appeared to cruise through the regular season and "turned it on" for the playoffs, it didn't work because in the end they got swept. That "conclusion" lacks context, IMO, because it's totally ignores the fact that the the regular-season Lakers who turned it on for the playoffs were not at all the same team that then faced the Pistons.

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Also, let's supply some context for the Lakers getting swept. Their biggest loss of the series was with a healthy Magic in game one by 12 points. In game two, Magic played 29 minutes and LA went down 2-0. So, the Lakers were already in deep sh*t heading home down 2-0, as teams lose playoff series 93% of the time in that scenario.

Again, not looking at the full story. First, in Game Two, the Lakers were leading when Magic got injured. So to assume a Game Two loss with a healthy Magic (not to mention a healthy Byron) is a mind-numbingly elementary assumption, IMO. Second, so if we discount Game Two as an automatic loss (which any resonable person would), and only look at Game One - OK, sure, the Lakers lost with a healthy Magic (but no Byron). Even so, I can think of numerous series' that weren't over simply because of the Game One result. In fact, one needs to only go back ONE SEASON IN A SERIES BETWEEN THE SAME TWO TEAMS to see that a game one loss does spell the end of the series for the loser (and rewind just 4 years earlier, much as it pains me to remember, for a pretty stark example).

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Oh, and more context, these Pistons won 6 more games than any other team in 1989 and would win the title again the following year.

Sure. I'm not contending the Pistons weren't the better team, nor that the Lakers would've won the series if healthy. I'm only saying that to, in essence, chalk up the Lakers' getting swept to their having cruised through the regular season is lacking context to a absurd degree.

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Two injured starters for the 1989 Lakers? Golden State is expected to be missing Durant until game 3 at the earliest and Boogie, who played all of 30 games with his new team during the regular season, will be tasked with overcoming his latest injury, shaking off the rust from another extended absence, and trying to continue his integration into his new team in the worst possible situation, an NBA Final. Oh, so much context!!!

Sure. But you're trying to connect two entirely different subjects. Unless you are trying to say that the 2019 Raptors are the equivalent of the 1989 Pistons. Nobody thinks that the '89 Lakers-minus-their-backcourt could challenge the '89 Pistons, and in fact, they didn't. Nearly everybody thinks the Warriors-minus-KD&Boogie can *at least* compete with the Raptors, with most people considering the Warriors the favorites. So there's no connection here.

I'll reiterate or additionally attempt to clarify: Pointing out the Lakers' '89 injuries was not offering up an excuse as to why they lost (although it surely works as one). Rather it was to counter this "logic"...

Originally Posted by darkhorse

And, that Lakers team was swept 4-0 by the Pistons in the Finals.

Which was in response to this legitimate observation:

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I remember one year in the 80's, the Lakers looked vulnerable. After dominating the west for so many years, they barely won home court advantage. So it was expected LA would struggle a bit. I think they ended up sweeping all 3 series in the west. And I think it was the Suns who they beat in the WCF. They asked Tom Chambers why was it that none of the west could give the Lakers a fight after it seemed like they were weakening. And he said if you were in the finals every year, how much effort and desire are you going to muster up for a regular season game?

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by thehef

It *is* a statement of fact that the Lakers got swept 4-0. The "conclusion" by you (correct me if I'm wrong) was that although the Lakers appeared to cruise through the regular season and "turned it on" for the playoffs, it didn't work because in the end they got swept.

That was not my conclusion. I don't believe any topflight team, much less ones lead by Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or the Golden State quartet is going to put up with teammates coasting through the season. That is anathema to obsessive competitors. The Lakers finished with the best record in the West 9 out of 10 seasons during the 80's and won 5 titles. That team was driven and the best ones always are.

I pointed out the 4-0 sweep because Cobra Commander omitted that detail. I doubt the Pistons or Lakers would have had much use for Tom Chambers.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

How did the Celtics "know" they were the best team in the NBA in 1986 seeing as they'd lost in the Finals the previous season.

That's not the point. Does it make you feel better if I rephrase that to "they were a very confident bunch and had no doubt that with the best starting five in the game plus the addition of Bill Walton to solidify their bench, the felt they were the best team?"

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Also, did they know they were the NBA's best team the following year or any of the next 22 seasons when they failed to bring home the trophy?

Who knows? Who cares? It's not on topic. It seems like you are changing subjects and trying to start arguments, as opposed to focusing on coherently backing up your points.

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Also, that multi-title Celtic team (championships in '81 and '84) expended a lot of energy dominating the league with a won-loss of 67-15 that's only one win shy of the franchise record. Why did they feel compelled to play hard so often and take home field advantage throughout the East playoff by a ten win margin. Surely, these wily veterans would have coasted through the season, won in the high fifties, then hit the on switch for the playoffs. This is the current explanation for Golden State no longer being able to crush the league in the regular season and it is equally dubious.

Again, not the point. My point about the '86 Celtics was that it was definitely possibly for a team to turn it on and off, and be successful in the end.

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Why did they feel compelled to play hard so often and take home field advantage throughout the East playoff by a ten win margin. Surely, these wily veterans would have coasted through the season, won in the high fifties, then hit the on switch for the playoffs.

Again, who knows? Who cares? And you missed the point. Yet again. At any rate, no two paths to a title are identical. Perhaps the 2020 champion will have gone all-out, all season long, and the 2021 champ will have set it on cruise-control occasionally but not enough to lose the #1 seed, and the 2022 champ will have only been concerned with making the playoffs. It doesn't matter. The point still is that teams can turn it on and off (and have done so). That is all.

Originally Posted by darkhorse

This is the current explanation for Golden State no longer being able to crush the league in the regular season and it is equally dubious.

First of all, it's not necessarily "no longer able" but - the contention is - "no longer trying" to crush the league (during the regular season). And it's not "equally dubious" because neither the prior point of teams being able to turn it on and off, nor the application of same to the current Warriors is dubious. Except of course, IYO.

[RchW]

Not bad seats

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by thehef

Again, not the point. My point about the '86 Celtics was that it was definitely possibly for a team to turn it on and off, and be successful in the end.

Your contention that the '86 Celtics won 67 games, one off the franchise record, while giving their best effort only on occasion would be laughed out of the room by every player and coach on that team, IMO.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by RchW

Not bad seats

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by thehef

It's not on topic. It seems like you are changing subjects and trying to start arguments, as opposed to focusing on coherently backing up your points.

I think this is the most important phrase in the whole discussion. There is a reason why I put him on ignore. You can tell the ones who go online just to put a dent in someone's day. I ain't got time time for it.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Rizon

I think Game 1 will set the tone. Barring major injuries ... if Raptors win, Warriors win series in 7. If Warriors win, Warriors win series in 4or5 with Curry MVP (and 30+ points each game).

I agree basically. Game 1 is a must win for Toronto. This series will barely last into the 1st week of June if Dubs win tonight.


1. You can't expect van Fleet to hit 68% from the field, 82% from 3 like he has the last 3 games. They needed every one of those pts vs Milwaukee. If GS were to get a similar effort from one their bench players, it would be a bonus, not a necessity.

2. Toronto's roadblock has been LBJ. I'm not saying the Lakers are as good as James supporting cast in Cleveland last year, but LA didn't come close to the playoffs. That same type of lineup was challenging for the East title last season. No doubt Leonard is better than DeRozan. But is that much of a diff maker?To account for virtually the same lineup climbing over the hump?

3. Toronto may be good on defense. But vs Milwaukee they only had to pack the lane to keep Giannis out of the paint. You have to guard the whole court vs the Dubs. They won;t have the luxury of sitting Danny Green while he is in a slump. They need him in the lineup for his one on one defense.

I want to say Warriors in 5, but I say 6 games to be conservative.

[Cobra Mgr]

Raptors have done a great job holding the Dubs @ bay.

[darkhorse]

It's the Warriors first game against a top 5 defense in 2 and a half months.

[Cobra Mgr]

I just noticed something.....Why did Toronto change which basket they shot at for the 2nd half? Earlier in the playoffs, they shot in front of their own bench in the 2nd half.