NBA Season - 2013-2014

[Jedi_Master]

I think you have a legit argument for Thibs as best coach in the league -- well, were it not for Popovich. Hey uh, how's that extension going for Thibs? Not that my team needs a great coach, we're SOOOOO happy with D'Antoni.

Popovich is amazing, but Thibs winning with THIS bulls team is like winning the Daytona 500 with a stock Toyota Camry. Popovich has better players, and a smarter organization behind him.

Yeah, same knock they used to use on Phil. But Pop has turned over a couple of rosters and has managed to keep his team a serious contender year in, year out -- in the west.

A lot of what the Bulls are doing this season is based on players getting that psychological boost from what I call, "missing superstar syndrome" -- well that and playing in the east. If the Bulls were in the west, they might, and I say might be an eighth seed. And even when the Bulls had Rose, they still couldn't get to the Finals.

Thibs is a really good coach but there is no way he is on Pop's level, at least not at this time. Now, if he gets this Bulls team into the Finals, we can talk.

He is not the best in the league, but he is a contender for the Coach of the Year. I personally think Steve Clifford will win, but I think Thibs definitely deserves a look. The East is terrible, but the top contenders in the West feasted on their mediocrity as well (Spurs were 24-6 v the East) so if we are going to take away the value of those wins, we need to do so equally.

He won't get the Bulls into the Finals unless there is some kind of miracle, or the Pacers and Heat don't find a way to step up their game, but he has done wonders with his bench players, and has patched a rotation of parts and pieces and kept them believing in the concept of team over star.

 

[gblews]

Popovich is amazing, but Thibs winning with THIS bulls team is like winning the Daytona 500 with a stock Toyota Camry. Popovich has better players, and a smarter organization behind him.

Yeah, same knock they used to use on Phil. But Pop has turned over a couple of rosters and has managed to keep his team a serious contender year in, year out -- in the west.

A lot of what the Bulls are doing this season is based on players getting that psychological boost from what I call, "missing superstar syndrome" -- well that and playing in the east. If the Bulls were in the west, they might, and I say might be an eighth seed. And even when the Bulls had Rose, they still couldn't get to the Finals.

Thibs is a really good coach but there is no way he is on Pop's level, at least not at this time. Now, if he gets this Bulls team into the Finals, we can talk.

The East is terrible, but the top contenders in the West feasted on their mediocrity as well (Spurs were 24-6 v the East) so if we are going to take away the value of those wins, we need to do so equally.

Not really. Because the Bulls reside in the east, they played way more of their games against eastern competition that the west teams.

And Coach of the Year has rarely been an indication of the best coach in the league.

 

[gblews]

I like this one from Fivethirtyeight: An analysis of the Bad Boy Pistons based on technical fouls. If you compare technical fouls relative to other teams in the same era, their two championship teams are the most ever.

I think this may be a classic case of not being able to see the forrest for the trees.

What the Pistons brought (back) to the NBA wasn't just the willingness to get technical fouls, it was defense. In playing the stifling defense they played, the Pistons did a lot of bumping, grabbing, shoving, holding, uh...hitting, etc, which sometimes resulted in technical fouls. But their overall play helped keep the score down which allowed the light on scoring Pistons to at least be in every game they played. Their winning was due to good D, not techs.

Befoe the Pistons, no one played defense in the league. The Lakers one year in the '80's led the league in scoring averaging 113 a game. The Pistons' legacy isn't technical fouls, it was, and is, shut down D. Any team these days with aspirations of winning a chanpionship knows they have to play defense. Good D almost always generates more T's than no defense.

Is this the same guy who wrote the article on steals?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Two things:
First, it is worth keeping in mind that technical fouls and flagrant fouls were the same thing back then, which is why it's more useful a measurement that one would think if we're talking about tough physical defense.

Second, I think the point more is to establish that the team was one that played fast and loose with the rules (and, hence, got a lot of technical fouls). There is a side point that technical fouls are bizarrely correlated with success, but I think the emphasis there is on the word "bizarrely." The point here is just that the reputation is well-founded. Relative to the time period, they were more "bad" than everyone else.

It is the same guy. Unless someone can show something wrong with his statistics, the math is the same either way. No one is necessarily saying there's causation, just correlation.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Playoffs are here! Any thoughts?

My predictions

Indiana beats Atlanta 4-1

Miami beats Charlotte 4-1

Brooklyn beats Toronto 4-3

Chicago beats Washington 4-2

West

S.A. beats Dallas 4-0

OKC beats Memphis 4-2

LAC beats Golden State 4-3 (best matchup of the opening round)

Portland beats Houston 4-2

East Conf. Semis

Chicago beats Indiana 4-3 (I know, I'm a homer but hell I think they can do it)

Miami beats Brooklyn 4-3

West Conf. Semis

S.A. beats Portland 4-1

LAC beats OKC 4-3


Eastern Finals

Miami beats Chicago 4-2

S.A. beats LAC 4-3


Finals

S.A. beats Miami 4-2

 

[gblews]

Two things:
First, it is worth keeping in mind that technical fouls and flagrant fouls were the same thing back then, which is why it's more useful a measurement that one would think if we're talking about tough physical defense.

Second, I think the point more is to establish that the team was one that played fast and loose with the rules (and, hence, got a lot of technical fouls). There is a side point that technical fouls are bizarrely correlated with success, but I think the emphasis there is on the word "bizarrely." The point here is just that the reputation is well-founded. Relative to the time period, they were more "bad" than everyone else.

It is the same guy. Unless someone can show something wrong with his statistics, the math is the same either way. No one is necessarily saying there's causation, just correlation.

i think the guy is trying to show causatiuon as well correlation. His article states that technical fouls are "bizarely predictive of success". It's like he compiles stats and draws conclusions based on those stats without having watched the game.

Part 1 of the article, to me, appears to be less about how "bad" the Bad Boys were than how their success might be (or is), tied to the number of T's the team got.

Maybe part 2 will bring his point more into focus because right now it looks like he's way off the track.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Predictive of success, once again, isn't causation. It's just a statistically significant correlation. In other words, if you compile a list of teams organized by technical fouls, you'll find the teams with more technical fouls did better.

I can think of at least one reason for this correlation that isn't causation. Bad players who also get technical fouls are kicked off teams. If you have a team full of Rasheed Wallaces, you will do well regardless of the number of technicals you get. But I'll wait for part 2 for more comments.

 

[Starbreaker]

I can't stand to see the Hawks get blown out in the first round again. They're so mediocre it's annoying.

 

[Borgminister]

Good thing Indiana has completely imploded... "No H-mo"!

 

[gblews]

Wow, what's happened to the Pacers? Earlier in the regular season I thought they had a shot at upsetting the Heat and getting to the Finals. Then I started hearing about dissension in the lockeroom and then they started losing. Paul George may regret signing the extension.

Despite dropping game 1 at home, I still expect the Clips to beat the Warriors in 7. Hard to see the Warriors overcoming the loss of Bogut. That loss really hurts their defense although they looked pretty good on D Sunday, helped out by Blake Griffin's foul trouble.

Clips will win game 2 and at least one at Golden State to regain HCA.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

So apparently the Clippers owner is super racist!

Holy shit

Seriously, go listen to the audio

 

[gblews]

TNZ sent out a mass tweet this morning.

It's been well known for several years in L.A. that he is pretty much a male Marge Shott. The apartment buildings he owns had refused for years to rent to black people. The recording just cements the fact. I feel bad for the players who are going to be bombarded by questions about this. Going to be interesting to see what the new commish will do.

The Clippers organization are already releasing their, "this does not reflect his feelings on people'. You'd think he would be denying that it was his voice (whether it is or not).

Yeah, this is going to be interesting.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I think it is about time Donald Sterling gets his comeuppance. There have been several articles written over the past decade about his racism, and bigotry, but he has always been able to dodge any serious consequences or sue his way out of trouble. This time he won't be able to get away with it.

On a side note, who thought Dallas would be so much trouble for the Spurs?

 

[Timby]

I think it is about time Donald Sterling gets his comeuppance. There have been several articles written over the past decade about his racism, and bigotry, but he has always been able to dodge any serious consequences or sue his way out of trouble. This time he won't be able to get away with it.

There's nothing really stopping him from getting away with it. Remember, the NBA (and all major sports leagues in the USA, really) is technically a monopoly, and what qualifies the NBA for its antitrust exemption that the teams are "independent" organizations doing business with one another as an association, and the commissioner serves at the leisure of the owners as their employee.

The long and the short of it is that there's no provision in the bylaws to forcibly remove an owner. Sterling owns the contracts, the rights to the images and the team brand, the stadium contracts, etc. If the league did attempt to do so (say, by trying to get every other team to fork out money to buy the team from Sterling, or saying, "Sell the Clippers or we'll remove them from the schedule in 2014 - 2015,"), they'd be hit with an antitrust lawsuit about six seconds later, and the league would lose. (To say nothing of the grievance that would come six seconds after that from the NBPA for lost pay.)

Basically, there is no legal precedent to say, "You said racist stuff, so you have to give away property with no trial." (If there were, Sterling would have been booted decades ago for being a slumlord who refuses to rent properties to minorities.)

I've heard Marge Schott brought up by some people as a comparison, but what those people are missing is that Schott never had the Reds taken away from her; she was simply barred from her role of managing the team.

Realistically, the only thing the NBA can do is slap Sterling with a fine (and even that's iffy, as California is a two-party consent state, so whomever released that recording -- probably the girlfriend -- broke the law) and maybe bar him from attending Clippers games for a while.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I think it is about time Donald Sterling gets his comeuppance. There have been several articles written over the past decade about his racism, and bigotry, but he has always been able to dodge any serious consequences or sue his way out of trouble. This time he won't be able to get away with it.

There's nothing really stopping him from getting away with it. Remember, the NBA (and all major sports leagues in the USA, really) is technically a monopoly, and what qualifies the NBA for its antitrust exemption that the teams are "independent" organizations doing business with one another as an association, and the commissioner serves at the leisure of the owners as their employee.

The long and the short of it is that there's no provision in the bylaws to forcibly remove an owner. If the league did attempt to do so (say, by trying to get every other team to fork out money to buy the team from Sterling, or saying, "Sell the Clippers or we'll remove them from the schedule in 2014 - 2015,"), they'd be hit with an antitrust lawsuit about six seconds later, and the league would lose.

Basically, there is no legal precedent to say, "You said racist stuff, so you have to give away property with no trial." (If there were, Sterling would have been booted decades ago for being a slumlord who refuses to rent properties to minorities.) And there's no framework to unilaterally take a team away from an owner: Sterling owns the contracts, the rights to the images and the team brand, the stadium contracts, etc.

I've heard Marge Schott brought up by some people as a comparison, but what those people are missing is that Schott never had the Reds taken away from her; she was simply barred from her role of managing the team.

Realistically, the only thing the NBA can do is slap Sterling with a fine (and even that's iffy, as California is a two-party consent state, so whomever released that recording -- probably the girlfriend -- broke the law) and maybe bar him from attending Clippers games for a while.

I realize the factual nature of your comment, but it seems that the NBA is taking this seriously.
Could the NBA remove Sterling from a position of managing his team? Are there any other owners of the Clippers who could offer to buy Sterling out - with a nudge and perhaps financing from the NBA?

One thing that is already happening is that Sterling (who has managed these crises before) is claiming that it is a fabricated recording, that he doesn't feel that way, etc. etc.

I just don't see this going away, but Sterling might be able to ride out another one of these "incidents".

 

[Timby]

No, Sterling is the sole owner of the Clippers (he picked them up for dirt cheap in the '80s).

 

[Jedi_Master]

That sucks. He holds the cards, particularly if his lawyers can prove the recording was "fabricated".

But man there are going to be some upset people for the next few weeks. It will be interesting to see if the Clippers players boycott a game.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

Man, my Thunder are pathetic. It's going to be a long, loooooong off season wondering what might have been. Put a fork in them. They're done. That's just a fact. They give up a 14 point lead. Pathetic. They were doing everything they needed to do...then they took their foot off the gas. Again. They'll be down 3-1 in another minute or so. They can't beat this team three straight times.

Tony Allen (Eddie Sutton taught him well) made Durant his bitch. No denial of that fact. Simply the truth. C'est la vie.

EDIT: Tied at 80 all with 30 seconds left. Don't hope, Dorian. Don't allow yourself to do it. The Grizzlies are simply too good and they believe in themselves. For good reason. OT will favor the Grizzlies. It has the last two games.

Sigh. 4 of 19 shooting for Durant. Allen is in his head like a boar worm. sigh.

The Thunder steals the ball with seconds left. Reggie Jackson has two teammates in the forecourt to pass to for an easy shot to win the game. He throws it away. He fucking threw it away. OT. No chance.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

Never mind.



HO-LY CRAP. Westbrook and Durant stunk up the floor like limburger on a 130 degree day and the Thunder managed to win it in OT. Reggie Jackson saved the day after all. I may die from shock.

I'm not kidding. Durant is a great player, but he stunk like a sumo wrestler's armpits. There's no sugar coating it.

 

[gblews]

Realistically, the only thing the NBA can do is slap Sterling with a fine (and even that's iffy, as California is a two-party consent state, so whomever released that recording -- probably the girlfriend -- broke the law) and maybe bar him from attending Clippers games for a while.

The league may not "force" him to sell the team, but he can be suspended (more than just being banned from a few games) and that is what is most likely going to happen assuming the league becomes convinced that it is his voice on the tape. The circumstances under which the tape was released is not likely to be relevant in the league's investigation and decision.

There is no way the league cannot make a major statement with this punishment and maintain their credibility in this area. If they don't, the next player who makes an off color remark will just point to Donald Sterling, a known racist, and one of the league's rules makers, and dare them to hand out any punishment.