NBA Off-Season Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Baller
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 16,529
- Reaction score
- 196
- Points
- 63
- Age
- 35
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Re: NBA Regular Season Discussion Thread
20 for Mike
25 for Matt
Their sample size isn't that different. Barnes has attempted 5 more field goals, 13 more threes, 14 more free throws, grabbed 69 more rebounds, dished 12 more assists, has 15 more steals, and scored 32 more points.
5 games shouldn't lead to those big of gaps between the two players especially since Miller was the second option on those Memphis teams and his numbers all dropped from the regular season every year
I do agree with you that Mike Miller is slightly better during the regular season, but I am making the point to Baller that his postseason play isn't really that much better at all.
20 for Mike
25 for Matt
Their sample size isn't that different. Barnes has attempted 5 more field goals, 13 more threes, 14 more free throws, grabbed 69 more rebounds, dished 12 more assists, has 15 more steals, and scored 32 more points.
5 games shouldn't lead to those big of gaps between the two players especially since Miller was the second option on those Memphis teams and his numbers all dropped from the regular season every year
I do agree with you that Mike Miller is slightly better during the regular season, but I am making the point to Baller that his postseason play isn't really that much better at all.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 16,529
- Reaction score
- 196
- Points
- 63
- Age
- 35
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Re: NBA Regular Season Discussion Thread
Watching Chuck Hayes go to work beside him is comical when he looks for his shot
Watching Chuck Hayes go to work beside him is comical when he looks for his shot
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 23,705
- Reaction score
- 402
- Points
- 83
- Age
- 36
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Sports Team
-
- Favorite Sports Team
-
Re: NBA Regular Season Discussion Thread
issed: lol but I'll simply agree with the whole Bynum/Barnes being better than Mike/Haslem for the reasons already given.
What else you got?
- The Lakers had the best 3pt defense and FG defense in the league the past 3 years when he played. They had the best defensive stats in the last two postseasons even over Boston when he played.
- Did you not see the guy just play 2 straight postseasons banged up and help his team get a ring?
- Bynum has been a double digit scorer as a starter throughout his whole career. He converts at a higher clip than Pau at times. He unlike Miller has not struggled to average 10 points over the past 2 seasons.
- Miller is a good rebounding guard, but La has the best defensive and offensive rebounding team in the league the past 2 postseasons with Bynum. (Cue Mak being pissed off about hearing LENGTH)
- Barnes has a higher defensive rating, allows a lower defensive per, and averages almost the same points and rebs over the past three years while playing less minutes that Miller. When you look at playoff averages there is a 0.4 ppg difference in favor of Miller, but Barnes averages the same amount of assists, 2 rebounds more, more steals, and shoots better percentage wise from both the field and three point range.
- We got Kobe and Fish for that. You know the guys who went to 7 out of the past 11 finals and won 5 rings
- Nice job by you not bringing Haslem into the mix because you know he is inferior.
issed: lol but I'll simply agree with the whole Bynum/Barnes being better than Mike/Haslem for the reasons already given.Re: NBA Regular Season Discussion Thread
The fact that neither has a good sample size doesn't make this a fair comparison, unless you think 2 wrongs make a right.
Oh, and my weekly suggestion that Phil Jackson SHUT THE FUCK UP:
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....-for-contraction-small-market-man-that-he-is/
The fact that neither has a good sample size doesn't make this a fair comparison, unless you think 2 wrongs make a right.
Oh, and my weekly suggestion that Phil Jackson SHUT THE FUCK UP:
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....-for-contraction-small-market-man-that-he-is/
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 16,529
- Reaction score
- 196
- Points
- 63
- Age
- 35
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Re: NBA Regular Season Discussion Thread
Contraction helps, doesn't hurt the league. The talent would be spread much more evenly throughout, travel would be less, and the overall level of play would be higher theoretically.
Plus did you read the part that said?:
Contraction helps, doesn't hurt the league. The talent would be spread much more evenly throughout, travel would be less, and the overall level of play would be higher theoretically.
Plus did you read the part that said?:
Re: NBA Regular Season Discussion Thread
The overall level of play would be REALLY high if we reduced the league to 2 teams. It could be just New York and the Lakers, then the talent pool would be incredible and everybody would be happy.
What's fucking Blue about Lakers people opening their mouths is exactly what the writer of that article, Matt Moore, said. To talk about destroying basketball in a number of cities just because they struggle financially is bullshit.
The overall level of play would be REALLY high if we reduced the league to 2 teams. It could be just New York and the Lakers, then the talent pool would be incredible and everybody would be happy.
What's fucking Blue about Lakers people opening their mouths is exactly what the writer of that article, Matt Moore, said. To talk about destroying basketball in a number of cities just because they struggle financially is bullshit.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 16,529
- Reaction score
- 196
- Points
- 63
- Age
- 35
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Re: NBA Regular Season Discussion Thread
And having the Lakers (or other teams making profits) basically bankroll them is right? The Lakers are the most profitable team and have had the biggest star draw for moving merch, ads, tv deals, and selling tickets for almost a decade, yet they have to share a portion of their profits with those same teams who are in financial problems. They also have to have their luxury tax spendings spread out to the teams under the cap on top of it, and you know it should be one or the other (luxury tax or profit sharing) not both just to help an opponent stay in business.
Why should other teams have to pay for teams not putting a quality product out there? Hell the argument is the same for the NBAPA, why should they have to reduce their salaries and make up for the fact owners give out bad deals by their own will and spend above what they can afford to pay?
And having the Lakers (or other teams making profits) basically bankroll them is right? The Lakers are the most profitable team and have had the biggest star draw for moving merch, ads, tv deals, and selling tickets for almost a decade, yet they have to share a portion of their profits with those same teams who are in financial problems. They also have to have their luxury tax spendings spread out to the teams under the cap on top of it, and you know it should be one or the other (luxury tax or profit sharing) not both just to help an opponent stay in business.
Why should other teams have to pay for teams not putting a quality product out there? Hell the argument is the same for the NBAPA, why should they have to reduce their salaries and make up for the fact owners give out bad deals by their own will and spend above what they can afford to pay?
Re: NBA Regular Season Discussion Thread
The Lakers are in one of the biggest markets in the country. Of course they make more money. They get the perk of getting to base their team in such a huge, profitable market. You don't think that's a part of it? And you don't think there's a benefit in spreading out nationwide and building up goodwill and broader appeal, even if those teams in Milwaukee, Memphis, etc. don't make as much money? L.A. has to share some of its outrageous profit, which it gets in HUGE part to being in L.A. in the first place. Seriously, this is what L.A. has to complain about? Cut the shit.
The Lakers are in one of the biggest markets in the country. Of course they make more money. They get the perk of getting to base their team in such a huge, profitable market. You don't think that's a part of it? And you don't think there's a benefit in spreading out nationwide and building up goodwill and broader appeal, even if those teams in Milwaukee, Memphis, etc. don't make as much money? L.A. has to share some of its outrageous profit, which it gets in HUGE part to being in L.A. in the first place. Seriously, this is what L.A. has to complain about? Cut the shit.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 16,529
- Reaction score
- 196
- Points
- 63
- Age
- 35
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Re: NBA Regular Season Discussion Thread
When teams aren't making profits and you are having to bail them out I see a problem.
If LA's market was the sole factor the Clippers would make way more than they do even though they have always been somewhat profitable in LA. Quality of product also comes in to play and makes the higher ticket prices, advertising revenue, television rights, and merchandise sales what it is.
If you are a team like the Hornets who admittedly over spent on Peja and Chandler years ago just to appease Paul or like the Cavs who over spent on Hughes, Varejao, Gibson, and others to appease LeBron you should be willing to live with the consequences of your decisions. The same goes for Minny when they gave KG the dubious honor of being the highest paid guy in the league and couldn't bring in any talent or generate the revenue that they wanted to excuse all the first round exits and lotto years.
It is bull shit to LAL, Toronto, NYC, Orlando, Boston, SA, Chicago, and so on to foot the bill in two ways for teams who aren't willing to spend to put out a good product (Bobcats) or who spend more than they have and can generate (Hornets). Either give them the profits from the luxury tax or abolish it all together with a hard 100 mil cap if you are just going to use the finances of winners who spend money, win, and make a good profit to fund other squads as well. There is no need for teams to bankroll them twice
* Memphis actually has made a profit since dealing Pau, whereas they couldn't afford his deal years ago because he wasn't putting asses in their seats
When teams aren't making profits and you are having to bail them out I see a problem.
If LA's market was the sole factor the Clippers would make way more than they do even though they have always been somewhat profitable in LA. Quality of product also comes in to play and makes the higher ticket prices, advertising revenue, television rights, and merchandise sales what it is.
If you are a team like the Hornets who admittedly over spent on Peja and Chandler years ago just to appease Paul or like the Cavs who over spent on Hughes, Varejao, Gibson, and others to appease LeBron you should be willing to live with the consequences of your decisions. The same goes for Minny when they gave KG the dubious honor of being the highest paid guy in the league and couldn't bring in any talent or generate the revenue that they wanted to excuse all the first round exits and lotto years.
It is bull shit to LAL, Toronto, NYC, Orlando, Boston, SA, Chicago, and so on to foot the bill in two ways for teams who aren't willing to spend to put out a good product (Bobcats) or who spend more than they have and can generate (Hornets). Either give them the profits from the luxury tax or abolish it all together with a hard 100 mil cap if you are just going to use the finances of winners who spend money, win, and make a good profit to fund other squads as well. There is no need for teams to bankroll them twice
* Memphis actually has made a profit since dealing Pau, whereas they couldn't afford his deal years ago because he wasn't putting asses in their seats
Re: NBA Regular Season Discussion Thread
So either small market owners aren't spending enough, or they're spending too much? I guess the solution is finding 30 trillionaires to take over all the teams. As I said, small-market teams just aren't going to draw ideal owners, and they aren't going to make as much money. And that's the (relatively small) price you pay for GOODWILL. Now some of these assholes have the gall to suggest that we get rid of small-market teams, teams that maybe don't make money but still have small, passionate fanbases that would give up on the league. It was bullshit when LeBron suggested it out of ignorance, and it's bullshit when the privileged sons and daughters cry spitefully about it. A league with 8 teams would be a lot of fun, and people in those 8 cities would watch it. They want a global product.
And look at your own example. The Clippers, a terribly run franchise, not to mention that they came to L.A. long after the Lakers had established themselves there. The Clippers never had a chance to take hold in L.A. And even still, as you admit, they're still fucking profitable! I guess the solution is to move all these "poor" franchises to the big markets then, huh? Or...those big market teams can sack up, stop fucking crying, and help the small market teams out a little.
Jesus christ.
And a hard $100 million cap? So, you want the summer of 2010 to repeat itself every 3 years?
So either small market owners aren't spending enough, or they're spending too much? I guess the solution is finding 30 trillionaires to take over all the teams. As I said, small-market teams just aren't going to draw ideal owners, and they aren't going to make as much money. And that's the (relatively small) price you pay for GOODWILL. Now some of these assholes have the gall to suggest that we get rid of small-market teams, teams that maybe don't make money but still have small, passionate fanbases that would give up on the league. It was bullshit when LeBron suggested it out of ignorance, and it's bullshit when the privileged sons and daughters cry spitefully about it. A league with 8 teams would be a lot of fun, and people in those 8 cities would watch it. They want a global product.
And look at your own example. The Clippers, a terribly run franchise, not to mention that they came to L.A. long after the Lakers had established themselves there. The Clippers never had a chance to take hold in L.A. And even still, as you admit, they're still fucking profitable! I guess the solution is to move all these "poor" franchises to the big markets then, huh? Or...those big market teams can sack up, stop fucking crying, and help the small market teams out a little.
Jesus christ.
And a hard $100 million cap? So, you want the summer of 2010 to repeat itself every 3 years?