NBA 2018-19: Does the Least-ern Conference Have avChance?

[gblews]

LeBron broke into the top 5 of all time scorers with 44 against Portland last night. He's behind Kareem, Karl Malone, Kobe (two Lakers, thank you very much), and Jordan. Barring injury and all things being equal, he should become the NBA's all time leading scorer, a record that has belonged to Kareem for over 30 years, in around 3 seasons.

LeBron is donating the game ball and his jersey to his I Promise school back in Cle.

When that happens it will mean that 3 of the top 5 all time leading scorers will have worn the purple and gold armor when they got the record.

That is just impossibly sweet!

 

[JirinPanthosa]

So I've moved onto stage 2 of coping with the Celtics sucking this year, depression.

Who do I root for now? I guess the answer is "Anyone that looks like they even have a 10% chance against Golden State".

 

[Yassa Justice]

The question is, why wouldn't a team pick him up? Before his promotion in Cle, Lue worked steadily in the league as an assistant and was VERY well respected in that capacity. I expect he'll be on someone's bench before the season is over.

So he is just one among many.

 

[gblews]

So he is just one among many.

Yes, if the "many" have an NBA championship, which the "many" do not have.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

So turns out the Celtics were a good team after all, they just needed Jaylen Brown not to be playing.

Lebron is the kind of player who is a 30 win and three playoff series swing at the age of 35.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

So turns out the Celtics were a good team after all, they just needed Jaylen Brown not to be playing.

I don’t think Brown playing was the problem. I think Brown starting alongside four other players who need the basketball was the cause of the Celtics offensive woes. Playing five offensive-minded players together doesn’t work, especially when two of them are returning from injury, and two others are works in progress.

Brown and Hayward should been part of the second unit from day one, and, barring injury, they should stay there for the rest of the season.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I don’t think Brown playing was the problem. I think Brown starting alongside four other players who need the basketball was the cause of the Celtics offensive woes. Playing five offensive-minded players together doesn’t work, especially when two of them are returning from injury, and two others are works in progress.

Brown and Hayward should been part of the second unit from day one, and, barring injury, they should stay there for the rest of the season.

Well, I don't know how much stock you put in ESPN real plus-minus, but it has Kyrie and Smart on the first page, Hayward, Tatum, Al and Morris on pages 2 and 3, and Brown all the way on the last page. And I saw stats that Celtics were the #10 offense without Brown on the floor and worst offense with.

Yeah, a big part of it is that Brown, a young player, is struggling to find how to fit into a team with a lot of similar talents. But he's the piece that needed to be removed for the Celtics to play like people expected them to, and he's the one that needs to grow the most before he can contribute to the team.

I can see Hayward coming back into the starting five replacing Morris late in the season. But they have the right starting five right now.

 

[Yassa Justice]

Yes, if the "many" have an NBA championship, which the "many" do not have.

Oh, trust me all the credit will be given to Lebron.

He has the least respect of any coach that has won a ship that i remember.

 

[gblews]

Oh, trust me all the credit will be given to Lebron.

He has the least respect of any coach that has won a ship that i remember.

Then maybe it's your memory.

You think young inexperienced Eric Spoelstra got more respect than Lue? Spoelstra had a much better team than any of Bron's Cle teams and the Heat beat two much lesser teams than GSW for their two rings. You may be hung up on what happened to the Cavs last season. He was coaching a team put together to facilitate LeBron's game -- mostly spot up shooters and one dimensional bigs.

Yes, LeBron got the lion's share of credit (among the players), for winning a ring, but EVERYONE was acutely aware of the fact that even LeBron couldn't win a ring under certain coaches. And that list of coaches includes all of the Cle and Miami head coaches not named Eric Spoelstra.

The facts are that Lue was a very well respected assistant coach before he went to Cle. Winning a championship, no matter how much credit his players may have gotten, certainly won't lessen any of that respect. He may not get another head coaching spot as his next gig, but, assuming it is what he wants, I expect he'll be on an NBA bench at some point next season or perhaps even this season.

 

[Yassa Justice]

Then maybe it's your memory.

You think young inexperienced Eric Spoelstra got more respect than Lue? Spoelstra had a much better team than any of Bron's Cle teams and the Heat beat two much lesser teams than GSW for their two rings. You may be hung up on what happened to the Cavs last season. He was coaching a team put together to facilitate LeBron's game -- mostly spot up shooters and one dimensional bigs.

Yes, LeBron got the lion's share of credit (among the players), for winning a ring, but EVERYONE was acutely aware of the fact that even LeBron couldn't win a ring under certain coaches. And that list of coaches includes all of the Cle and Miami head coaches not named Eric Spoelstra.

The facts are that Lue was a very well respected assistant coach before he went to Cle. Winning a championship, no matter how much credit his players may have gotten, certainly won't lessen any of that respect. He may not get another head coaching spot as his next gig, but, assuming it is what he wants, I expect he'll be on an NBA bench at some point next season or perhaps even this season.

I don't buy that LeBron was coaheed outside of Miami much for most of his career.

So basicaslly he is like a D Leagfue player of NBA coaches in terms of respect?

Way under the respect level of all other ship winning coaches.

 

[gblews]

I don't buy that LeBron was coaheed outside of Miami much for most of his career.

So basicaslly he is like a D Leagfue player of NBA coaches in terms of respect?

Way under the respect level of all other ship winning coaches.

LeBron has been coached every season he's been in the league despite what fans think. I know the hype among some fans is that he coached himself, but just because the fans think this is true does not make it so. I think these fans are confused by the fact that they see the ball in LeBron's hands so much. They think it's that way because that is what LeBron demands.

What you're actually seeing, but may not recognize, are coaches taking advantage of a prodigiously talented player's major attributes. THAT is what a good coach is supposed to do. THAT is what Lue did.

So basicaslly he is like a D Leagfue player of NBA coaches in terms of respect?

Do you mean "G League"? Perhaps what you're really trying to say is that of NBA head coaches who have won at least one championship, Lue is the least respected. That might actually make some sense. But I don't think that's what you're saying.

Lue appeared to be one of those coaches who can come into a ready made situation, with talent already on board, get egos under control, get all the talent focused on a singular goal. That style sounds like a Phil Jackson type, which also just happens to be the coaching tree out of which Tyronn grew.

Of course, I'm not saying the two are the same, but what I am saying is that Lue and Jackson may share certain stylistic coaching skills. And these are the types of coaching skills that the average fan traditionally, has sometimes had trouble understanding and appreciating.

 

[Yassa Justice]

LeBron has been coached every season he's been in the league despite what fans think. I know the hype among some fans is that he coached himself, but just because the fans think this is true does not make it so. I think these fans are confused by the fact that they see the ball in LeBron's hands so much. They think it's that way because that is what LeBron demands.

What you're actually seeing, but may not recognize, are coaches taking advantage of a prodigiously talented player's major attributes. THAT is what a good coach is supposed to do. THAT is what Lue did.

Do you mean "G League"? Perhaps what you're really trying to say is that of NBA head coaches who have won at least one championship, Lue is the least respected. That might actually make some sense. But I don't think that's what you're saying.

Lue appeared to be one of those coaches who can come into a ready made situation, with talent already on board, get egos under control, get all the talent focused on a singular goal. That style sounds like a Phil Jackson type, which also just happens to be the coaching tree out of which Tyronn grew.

Of course, I'm not saying the two are the same, but what I am saying is that Lue and Jackson may share certain stylistic coaching skills. And these are the types of coaching skills that the average fan traditionally, has sometimes had trouble understanding and appreciating.

I recall LeBron announcing out of the blue that he will playing point guard for the Cavs and that he is beyond talking about it with anybody.

I don't think he is respected at all. All the podcasters i listen to call ed him puppet coach.
Get egos under control, he got fired after the biggest ego left the Cavs. The idea that he ordered LeBron around is beyond insane.

 

[gblews]

I recall LeBron announcing out of the blue that he will playing point guard for the Cavs and that he is beyond talking about it with anybody.

I don't ever recall reading about this or hearing it stated anywhere.

I don't think he is respected at all. All the podcasters i listen to call ed him puppet coach.

Yeah, one of the big problems for sports in general and particularly the NBA (because it is the only major American sport that gets the kind of year round coverage it gets), are people who form opinions based solely on what they hear from the so called "experts" on TV and the internet.

I hate to think of what your podcasters must be saying about David Blatt, a coach the "experts" said was such a great tactician, but who joins a long list of "great tacticians" who failed to win a championship while coaching the (current) best and most dominant, player in the game. In terms of winning a championship probably the best thing Blatt did was hire Lue as his top assistant, ironically.

Get egos under control, he got fired after the biggest ego left the Cavs. The idea that he ordered LeBron around is beyond insane.

Lue got fired after the best player in the league, the player around whom the team had been built, and around whom the entire offense revolved (and defense depended), left the team. I doubt there is a coach in the league who could have coached what was left in Cle to even 20 wins this season.

BTW, coaching is not about just 'ordering people around', especially when talking about a player of LeBron's ability, importance to the team, and stature in the league.

LeBron took no more advantage of his position than any other NBA star on his level and that includes MJ, Kobe, Shaq, etc.

I'd advise you to dig a little deeper into the game and it's teams before forming an opinion based on what you hear from some "expert" on a podcast.

 

[Mirror Tuvix]

Those new & improved Raptors are the real deal, methinks. Not that I would know much about it, I am a Bestern Conference lad myself.

 

[gblews]

^ Yes, the Raps are having a great season so far. They definitely have given every indication that they are not going to allow the Celtics the cake walk to the Finals they may have thought they'd have when LeBron moved out of the east.

And as of today, at least, with San Antonio still playing below 500 ball, it appears that Toronto won the trade by a pretty wide margin.

 

[gblews]

The Lakers X-mas Day victory over the Dubs said more about GSW than it did the Lakers, but the win was far from "nothing" for the Lakers.

The Lakers used to lose these Christmas games all the time in seasons in which they won championships. So Dubs shouldn't worry too much. But for the young Lakers, being able to withstand having their lead whittled down to points and not only hang on to win, but turn the game into a rout, was amazing.

One of the big questions about the Lakers after they put together this team was how the disparate personalities would fit together. It appears that that isn't a problem, at least not as of this point in the season.

Bron's injury doesn't appear to be serious, though Rondo will be out for a while as well, with a strained ligament in his finger.

Anyway, just a game in December, but a very satisfying one.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Interesting Celtics related note. In ESPN's real plus-minus, Marcus Smart is currently 22nd in the league. Kyrie is first on the team at 5th, then there are six other players lower in the top 120. With Kyrie it's +5.08 for offense and +0.90 for defense, and with Smart it's +0.97 for offense and +2.47 in defense.

I don't know which 'efficiency over replacement' rating is the most predictive of performance but I'm pretty sure these numbers are based on an analysis of points scored per X possessions with the player on versus off the court with similar players against similar opponents.

I've seen people complain about RPM on the grounds that it will say players with bad stats did better than players with good stats because their team played better when they were on the floor. But didn't we just get OUT of an era where selfish players were considered the stars because they put up the stats? If a player puts up poor traditional stats, but his team plays better when he's on the floor, doesn't that imply he's doing the small things to enable his team to do that?

 

[gblews]

^ Like most fans, I like it when my favorite player has a high +/- rating. I'm just not sure of the significance in terms of wins and losses. It might be that it is a more valuable stat for individual teams especially during games. It is a barometer of how well a particular player is doing in a given game.

But I've seen instances where a team's starters were all in the plus, and the team loses the game. So, hard to know how much value to be placed on the stat. It could be similar to the now nearly forgotten, "does he make his teammates better" standard in grading a player's value or greatness.

This was something that was pushed by NBA media and fans just 10 years ago as being the most important standard for measuring a player's value. Hardly talks about that standard these days.

We'll see if plus/minus is still a thing a few years from now.

But didn't we just get OUT of an era where selfish players were considered the stars because they put up the stats?

Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by this. Just curious.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

To be clear, I'm not talking about the raw plus/minus in any given box score, I'm talking about the advanced ones that use regression analyses based on who specifically is on the floor at the time and calculate the plus/minus relative to the average replacement.

Since 1958, the the NBA's league average score was in double digits 16 times. All between 1995 and 2013. This season it's about as high as it's ever been, equal to the peak of the Bird/Johnson/Jordan years. You think that has nothing to do with front offices employing plus/minus ratings? Just because ESPN isn't talking about it as much because it's a black box score to fans and doesn't always inflate the players who appear to be the best doesn't mean it isn't having an effect on the league.

In the 90s, I'm just saying there's a lot of players who were considered big commodities because they were putting up 20-25 ppg or other big stats on bad teams. And the guys who were putting up 10-15 ppg or high rebound totals were maybe overvalued compared to the guys like Smart. Hell, in the mid-nineties, Antoine Walker would probably be considered better than Marcus Smart.

Last year Al Horford made the all star team with 12.4 ppg, you think that's not a result of plus minus stats?

The superstars of the era weren't overrated, but when you go down from the top tier, players who put up stats were a little more overrated and players who didn't were a little more underrated. There's no stat for being the guy who drew the guy off and opened up a lane for the guy who scored. Or the guy who didn't get a steal or block but totally smothered the other team's best scoring option. The guy who passed the scorer the ball gets an assist and the guy who set the pick gets nothing. That's what the plus/minus ratings capture.

 

[gblews]

Since 1958, the the NBA's league average score was in double digits 16 times. All between 1995 and 2013. This season it's about as high as it's ever been, equal to the peak of the Bird/Johnson/Jordan years. You think that has nothing to do with front offices employing plus/minus ratings?

Yes, I do think it has very little to do with advanced plus/minus analysis by teams' front offices. The increase in scoring is directly related to players developing their ability to score from 23 feet or more from the basket and most importantly, their coaches not only giving them the green light, but making 3 point shooting a major part of their offense.

In the 90s, I'm just saying there's a lot of players who were considered big commodities because they were putting up 20-25 ppg or other big stats on bad teams. And the guys who were putting up 10-15 ppg or high rebound totals were maybe overvalued compared to the guys like Smart. Hell, in the mid-nineties, Antoine Walker would probably be considered better than Marcus Smart.

Yes, I know you like Marcus Smart and all, but he is nothing more than a role player, a valuable one (to the Celts in particular), but just a role player, nonetheless.

Every team needs them, no team wins consistently without them, but in the NBA, they are not the guys who will lead you to championships. That's why teams readily trade them, or let them walk in FA, as the Celts almost did with Smart this past summer.

Last year Al Horford made the all star team with 12.4 ppg, you think that's not a result of plus minus stats?

No, it wasn't. If he was a starter, he was chosen by the fans who don't know squat about advanced stats, generally. If he was chosen by the coaches, it is likely because he played well in games against their teams, or as recognition for how the guy played this season. All-star selections by coaches aren't made by studying advanced stats, that's done when coaches are planning in games that count.

The superstars of the era weren't overrated, but when you go down from the top tier, players who put up stats were a little more overrated and players who didn't were a little more underrated. There's no stat for being the guy who drew the guy off and opened up a lane for the guy who scored. Or the guy who didn't get a steal or block but totally smothered the other team's best scoring option. The guy who passed the scorer the ball gets an assist and the guy who set the pick gets nothing. That's what the plus/minus ratings capture.

Yes, I hear what you're saying, but you're talking about underrated and undervalued role players. One of the great things that happened in the Dubs first championship (since '74) was Iggy's Finals MVP. One of the rare times when a role player was recognized for his work. But even then Iggy got recognized not for the valuable little things, but because he stepped out and played more like a 'go to" guy or a star.

I think you may be a bit too focused on the Celts here. Antoine Walker was famously overrated, but other high scorers in the '90's certainly were not, unless you think guys like Jordan and Shaq were overrated. I think not.

Role players are important, but if all your team has is real good role players, then you can generally forget an NBA championship, though a few regular season wins aren't out of the question.

Advanced plus/minus stats are important, but just keep in mind that when it comes to winning rings, you need some dogs who can go out there and impose their will upon the other team (despite that teams' positive advanced +/- stats), when everything is at stake.