I honestly think Durant is a better pure scorer. Lebron could be the most physically gifted athlete in NBA history. As a result, he has size abilities to get in the lane and finish/get fouled in ways that Durant doesn't, and as a result Durant has to score a bit more creatively. But that's just my opinion. And I patently disagree with Nom's fawning over Lebron off the court. I think he's pretty contrived and so much of his persona and moves in the past have been due to some of his handlers whispering in his ear. I think that he's got a bit of Tiger in him when questioned or things aren't going perfectly. I didn't like him all that much in Cleveland, and The Decision just confirmed what I always believed. Oh and him "knowing when to defer" at the end of games is the cutest way I've ever heard his dislike of such situations described.
JWags, he could very well be neutering orphans in his spare time, but in all the interviews and such I've seen of him, he comes across as a pretty likeable guy. Way more likeable to me personally than somebody like Tiger, and that's pretty much all I ask of somebody whom I've never and will never meet. This shouldn't even have to be said, but it's professional sports so of course it does: he's not a wifebeater (that we know of), a deadbeat dad, hasn't shot anyone, etc. I also think his 4th quarter issues are way overblown. He's not Chris Paul, but who is? Speaking of which, how great of a PG is Chris Paul? I wonder if teams who rely primarily on elite PGs do better in crunch time, because they're much more capable of creating plays for others. In my currently unresearched opinion, I'd rather have the ball in Steve Nash's hands with 20 seconds left than Carmelo Anthony's.
I was cursing the existence of time zones when I woke up this morning and saw that headline. Between it being fairly late and my annoyance with their Flop City act on the defensive end of the floor, I made the mistake of turning off the TV before the fourth. I find it remarkable how much less likable the Clippers have become over the course of the season. A lot of it has to do with Griffin (see: the article KIMaster posted a page or two back), and a lot to do with how they're probably the floppiest team in an era where flopping is epidemic. But it's weird, given the enthusiasm for Griffin last year and the excitement after they acquired Paul, that the median NBA fan might be actively cheering against them.
I also doubt that Hayward becomes a great player. He doesn't excel enough at any one area of the game. However, I think he can be a top 15, maybe even top 10 starting SG or SF (so either the top half or top third of the NBA) in a few years if he continues developing. The Jazz will be more than satisfied with that. My bad on that statistic; I think 32% was a number from the 90s or something. Regardless, Hayward's accuracy is not a bad percentage when taken in conjunction with his age and experience level. Look, if he was 22 and shooting 29% from the 3-pt line, you would have a point. And if he was 28 and shooting 34.6% from the 3-pt line, you would also be correct. But 34.6% at the age of 22? He has a decent chance to develop into a quality 3 point shooter. I only read DraftExpress, so I missed this. Incidentally, Draftxpress ruthlessly criticized Hayward for having a game that wouldn't translate to the pros, being a lousy shooter, and having an absurdly short wing-span, while pointing out his impressive speed and athleticism. They thought the Jazz taking him 9th overall was possibly the biggest reach of the draft. And during his rookie season, Hayward didn't do much to dispel the criticism. But in his sophomore campaign, he was practically a different player... Well, Kanter is only 19 years old and has a body that would give 19 year-old Dwight Howard and even 19 year-old Shaq an inferiority complex. The Turk is raw as hell, but already has a couple of nice offensive moves, is an insane rebounder and defender, and has a level of physical strength matched by only a few centers. Do you really want to give up a potential franchise player at the age of 19, after one lock-out shortened season? (And an impressive one at that?) At least with Millsap, you know you're giving up a player who isn't going to improve and at his best was a fringe All-Star. Oh, and he is a tweener who has a hard time defending quick SF and tall PFs. With Kanter? You're trading a guy who is unquestionably going to be a good defender and has the possibility of becoming an elite superstar. Honestly, I don't know whether I would rather trade Kanter or Millsap. It all depends upon the specific trade proposal; there are arguments for keeping or trading either. Of course it is. I just don't think most people decide favorite players by which of them is the most well-rounded. Really? I don't mind his interviews, but LeBron comes across as exactly who he is in them; an arrogant, occasionally immature dude who has been worshiped as a demigod since he was 14. Some of the stories that have come out from LeBron's time on Team USA (I will ignore those from his time in Cleveland since they might stem from bitterness) make Tucker Max seem like a swell fellow by comparison. Which I'm okay with; it would be patently shocking if LeBron was humble and respectful considering the way his life has been, and he's hardly alone among famous athletes. Just don't tell me he is a likeable or cool guy. He is an other-worldly basketball talent who should win his third MVP this season and hopefully go down as a top 10-15 all-time player. But like so many other all-time greats, he is far from a good, interesting, or nice person.
The main problem w/ LeBron in interviews (from my perspective) was not really outright douchery but more how he constantly came across as The Product. Everything he said/did was Nike-friendly and constantly poised towards pushing the brand of LBJ. I guess we can blame MJ for that. The other thing was how bizarrely obsessed he seemed with gaining widespread approval. He appeared deeply hurt by the revulsion that The Decision provoked. I think it would have been really interesting if that had developed into a Kobe-style anger, but that just doesn't seem to be who he is.
This is what I've been saying since the beginning. He does play with "The Hate". When he does a crazy dunk or makes someone looks stupid, he looks at his teammates for approval. Jordan and Kobe look(ed) at the person they dunked on. Made it personal against that person. Ric Bucher mentioned it on the B.S. Report yesterday saying how LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony came up in the same draft class. If that was Jordan up to this point, Jordan would have said "I got Melo tonight guys." Not asking, telling the team who he was going to guard so he could lock him down and beat him into submission so no one would mention them in the same breathe again. But that just doesn't seem to be who he is as you said.
Bulls and Hawks pushed for a game 6. Fucking great. Al Horford looked pretty damn good in the flashes I saw him. Also Andrew Bynum is becoming my 2nd favorite NBA interview. He's just an asshole. I love it.
Jumping on the OKC / Lakers bandwagons right now. 76ers beat the Bulls. Son of a bitch. Huge free throws for Iggy to make. That fucking hurt. Last time Doug Collin's won a playoff round? 1989 with none other than the Chicago Bulls.
The only people who think LAL has a realistic chance in the West are either deluded, ignorant Laker fans or casual NBA fans who have never bothered watching the Spurs play all season. (I know; there's a bunch of overlap between the two) Anyways, I am still a little surprised that the 76ers won the series, Derrick Rose being there or not. The Bulls had phenomenal depth, excellent team play, and stifling defense. While the 76ers were also strong in these areas, they were also far more erratic and inconsistent during the regular season. I guess they just got up for this particular match-up and played outstanding basketball for two weeks. And I believe Philadelphia has a good chance against Boston, by the way. The second round should be a lot of fun. Indiana's young team versus the Heat will make for consistently exciting games, even if Miami takes it in 5. Boston versus Philadelphia will be a tough, physical, close series. The Spurs in a rematch against Memphis would be awesome, as would a series against their polar opposites, the Clippers. The Thunder versus Lakers would be entertaining because of the drama, and Oklahoma City versus Denver would be great because of the basketball itself.
That's two consecutive playoff seasons where Boozer couldn't deliver. THREE POINTS?!?! THREE?!?!?! Goddamnit, somebody better stop the Heat. I don't care who. It would be nothing short of hilarious if Indiana pulled it off, but they're not. Fuck.
Relax, he did the same thing when he played for the Utah Jazz. Boozer just can't handle long, athletic forwards on either side of the ball, and at 30 years old, isn't quite as explosive as he used to be.
Not that Kobe's badassery was ever in doubt, but goddamn. He was so physically ill that he needed an IV before the game and during halftime just to have enough fluids in his system, and still scored 31 points on 13-out-of-23 shooting. Jesus. Now if only someone would tell Gasol the playoffs have started...
I'm jumping on the bandwagon of anyone who has a realistic chance of beating the Heat, so those two teams and possibly the Spurs. I'm an official Pacers fan for the next week, but shocked won't even begin to describe how I'll feel if they pull it off.
Well you can help yourself by crossing the Lakers and Spurs off that list. Miami would have home court against the Lakers, whom they own anyways. Spurs haven't given Miami too much trouble, but they have a better shot than the Fakers. Ride that OKC bandwagon. Their biggest strength (young & athletic) is also their biggest weakness (inexperience in the Finals). If the Heat can get their rotation down and their bench players to contribute something consistently, they will be hard to beat.
Reason #1054 why Kobe Bryant is not Michael Jordan.* As do I. Anyone who isn't taking them seriously is a fool. It may have the risk of being a kind of boring, ugly series (the two best defensive teams in the NBA), but I imagine it'll be close. I'm substantially more scared of the 76ers than I was of the Hawks (who can't run a half court offense to save their life and are undisciplined). *For the slow, this is what is called a "joke."
(Shortened version of a post I've tried to post 3 times but it kept getting lost.) Look, the Spurs are a great team against the Heat, and each team can win a match-up. Spurs play great fundamental but extremely boring basketball (like the Bulls without Rose, but I'm not a Spurs fan). No one wants the Spurs to make it besides Spurs fans because the storylines aren't there and it'll just be boring. The Duncan Cowboy story riding off into the sunset is not that exciting, heart warming yes, but not exciting. The Kobe-led Lakers would have a ton more excitement given the context of Kobe getting 6 rings, and then playing with LeBron during the Olympics quietly rubbing it in his face by deferring to him on all 4th quarter posessions. On top of that, you'd have Mike Brown who knows LeBron better than almost anybody, winning a ring without LeBron when everyone thought he was going to win with one. Not to mention the MWP, Bynum, and Pau's PAD (Playoff Affect Disorder). OKC would have a great story also, AND it would be exciting basketball. I'm just not invested in OKC yet and they still have plenty of time to win championships.
Spoken like someone who hasn't watched the Spurs play this year. This year's Spurs play fast paced ball with a lot of threes, and are amongst the leagues most prolific offenses. They have a ton of guys that can and do run. This is not the same kind of Spurs team that ground out "boring" championships over the Nets and Pistons.
I read this knowing you are correct, knowing that I have not watched enough Spurs basketball this year, and knowing I still don't want them in the Finals. I've changed the channel anytime the Spurs have come on. The announcers verbally blowing Duncan is too much for me, it always comes off like Jim Nantz talking about the Masters. This is just an uninformed gut opinion, I rather have the Lakers or OKC there in the Finals for the long-term entertaiment value of basketball.
Off the court drama aside, the Spurs are not only a vastly better team than the Lakers, they're also far more exciting to watch. Tony Parker is absolutely unstoppable, they rain down threes, and they're a unique mix of quality shooters and tough bigs. They also get out and run and dunk on their opponent's heads a lot. Compare that to the Lakers, who have few quality three point shooters, and play grind-it-out half-court sets. What's amusing is that Mike Brown was a protege of Gregg Popovich, but his team's offense are more lumbering and boring to watch than any Spurs team in the pre-handcheck rule era. Brown is considered a defensive specialist as a coach and average at best with his offenses. Unless one is a Lakers fan or enjoys basketball more because of the news articles and headlines than the play itself, they should want to see the Spurs in the Finals more than the Lakers, who are neither exciting nor particularly good this year. Of course, OKC would probably be even more entertaining.
KIMaster, mind elaborating your dislike of the Lakers? Based on your posts, your pessimism on them strikes me as a bit...excessive. Saying a team whose third best player is Pau Gasol is "not particularly good" seems harsh even from my Celtics-fan perspective.