2024-25 NBA Thread: for the second time, somebody in Dallas hits low percentage shot that leads to a generation of conspiracy theories (32 Viewers)

[Desert_Power]

Draymond making his trouble on the court in to a race thing is both idiotic and a huge slap in the face to people who actually face racism. Dude continues to be a huge POS.

What happened here? I see a bunch of links ESPN wants me to click about it but have refused.

He said that the league wanted to paint him as "an angry black man."

Tony Brothers was the official that initiated the review, completed the review and called the tech.

Draymond, once again, failed his arm at the end of the play in an unnecessary, non-basketball manner, and hit Naz Reid in the side of his head after Reid was called for a foul.

Really sucks that the league creates this catch-22 each playoffs. If GSW wins, we get to see more of Draymond's crap on the court. If they lose, he joins the studio to spew his garbage. Wish someone would give him the punch to the face he deserves.

I only listened to his podcast twice because I thought it was terrible, but I don't think he has been that bad with the TNT crew and he is certainly better than anything ESPN puts out.

I'll forever be turned off by his ******** jealousy about Gobert.

 

[the moops]

I keep hearing podcast folks - knowledgable basketball guys that I like and respect - talk about how the Knicks defense was really good and they showed grit and hustle and that is the main reason they beat Boston. I am skeptical. The reason they won was because Boston missed every single one of these wide open shots. Half of these NY didn't even try to defend the shooter

Derrick White

Al Horford

Jrue Holiday

Jayson Tatum

Payton Pritchard

I thought that the most recent Matt Lowe podcast explained the why of the Celtics failures on offense. Not going to try to reiterate the details, but made sense to me...

It's worth a listen IMO...

Zach Lowe?

I listened. I was unconvinced. I mean sure, they can tighten things up a bit, but their entire offense the entire Mazzulla era has been about getting these clean looks from three. For White to go 0-7 on those looks rarely happens. Same with Horford's 0-5. Ans on and on.

 

[Jayrod]

I keep hearing podcast folks - knowledgable basketball guys that I like and respect - talk about how the Knicks defense was really good and they showed grit and hustle and that is the main reason they beat Boston. I am skeptical. The reason they won was because Boston missed every single one of these wide open shots. Half of these NY didn't even try to defend the shooter

Derrick White

Al Horford

Jrue Holiday

Jayson Tatum

Payton Pritchard

I thought that the most recent Matt Lowe podcast explained the why of the Celtics failures on offense. Not going to try to reiterate the details, but made sense to me...

It's worth a listen IMO...

Zach Lowe?

I listened. I was unconvinced. I mean sure, they can tighten things up a bit, but their entire offense the entire Mazzulla era has been about getting these clean looks from three. For White to go 0-7 on those looks rarely happens. Same with Horford's 0-5. Ans on and on.

Yup. And they literally needed just 1 (maybe 2 to be safe) to go down to win either game.

 

[Mister CIA]

Also, someone can be educated and successful yet still angry.

Yeah, take me for instance...

He said educated and successful...

I'm more educated than Draymond and get laid bi-monthly, guy.

Winning!

That comma is doing some heavy lifting,

 

[Moe.]

I keep hearing podcast folks - knowledgable basketball guys that I like and respect - talk about how the Knicks defense was really good and they showed grit and hustle and that is the main reason they beat Boston. I am skeptical. The reason they won was because Boston missed every single one of these wide open shots. Half of these NY didn't even try to defend the shooter

Derrick White

Al Horford

Jrue Holiday

Jayson Tatum

Payton Pritchard

I thought that the most recent Matt Lowe podcast explained the why of the Celtics failures on offense. Not going to try to reiterate the details, but made sense to me...

It's worth a listen IMO...

Zach Lowe?

I listened. I was unconvinced. I mean sure, they can tighten things up a bit, but their entire offense the entire Mazzulla era has been about getting these clean looks from three. For White to go 0-7 on those looks rarely happens. Same with Horford's 0-5. Ans on and on.

I thought the discussion about how you don’t want the high variance plays when you’re up 20 was spot on. They honestly remind me of the way Lincoln Riley used to coach at OU - basically ignored game state which is dumb in a 7 game series.

 

[identikit]

I keep hearing podcast folks - knowledgable basketball guys that I like and respect - talk about how the Knicks defense was really good and they showed grit and hustle and that is the main reason they beat Boston. I am skeptical. The reason they won was because Boston missed every single one of these wide open shots. Half of these NY didn't even try to defend the shooter

Derrick White

Al Horford

Jrue Holiday

Jayson Tatum

Payton Pritchard

I thought that the most recent Matt Lowe podcast explained the why of the Celtics failures on offense. Not going to try to reiterate the details, but made sense to me...

It's worth a listen IMO...

Zach Lowe?

I listened. I was unconvinced. I mean sure, they can tighten things up a bit, but their entire offense the entire Mazzulla era has been about getting these clean looks from three. For White to go 0-7 on those looks rarely happens. Same with Horford's 0-5. Ans on and on.

Yes, Zach..sorry

Is it an era, already?

We'll see how effective Coach Joe's scheme is, long-term

I tend to think a team can/should have multiple ways to win games.

 

[identikit]

I keep hearing podcast folks - knowledgable basketball guys that I like and respect - talk about how the Knicks defense was really good and they showed grit and hustle and that is the main reason they beat Boston. I am skeptical. The reason they won was because Boston missed every single one of these wide open shots. Half of these NY didn't even try to defend the shooter

Derrick White

Al Horford

Jrue Holiday

Jayson Tatum

Payton Pritchard

I thought that the most recent Matt Lowe podcast explained the why of the Celtics failures on offense. Not going to try to reiterate the details, but made sense to me...

It's worth a listen IMO...

Zach Lowe?

I listened. I was unconvinced. I mean sure, they can tighten things up a bit, but their entire offense the entire Mazzulla era has been about getting these clean looks from three. For White to go 0-7 on those looks rarely happens. Same with Horford's 0-5. Ans on and on.

I thought the discussion about how you don’t want the high variance plays when you’re up 20 was spot on. They honestly remind me of the way Lincoln Riley used to coach at OU - basically ignored game state which is dumb in a 7 game series.

This

 

[identikit]

I keep hearing podcast folks - knowledgable basketball guys that I like and respect - talk about how the Knicks defense was really good and they showed grit and hustle and that is the main reason they beat Boston. I am skeptical. The reason they won was because Boston missed every single one of these wide open shots. Half of these NY didn't even try to defend the shooter

Derrick White

Al Horford

Jrue Holiday

Jayson Tatum

Payton Pritchard

I thought that the most recent Matt Lowe podcast explained the why of the Celtics failures on offense. Not going to try to reiterate the details, but made sense to me...

It's worth a listen IMO...

Zach Lowe?

I listened. I was unconvinced. I mean sure, they can tighten things up a bit, but their entire offense the entire Mazzulla era has been about getting these clean looks from three. For White to go 0-7 on those looks rarely happens. Same with Horford's 0-5. Ans on and on.

Yup. And they literally needed just 1 (maybe 2 to be safe) to go down to win either game.

I suppose the Knicks could have had 1 more, even 2 more go down also?

They were 6.9% less effective on 3s in that last game, compared to their regular season average.

 

[the moops]

I suppose the Knicks could have had 1 more, even 2 more go down also?

For sure. I am not going to screenshot cause that was a pain in the ***. But OG missed 1 wide open look, Hart missed 2, Bridges missed 2, Brunson missed 1, McBride missed 1. But that is only 7 wide open misses compared to 27!!!! for Boston.

 

[the moops]

I thought the discussion about how you don’t want the high variance plays when you’re up 20 was spot on. They honestly remind me of the way Lincoln Riley used to coach at OU - basically ignored game state which is dumb in a 7 game series.

But if a team is going to play drop coverage and take away driving lanes, what are you supposed to do if not take the wide open looks you are getting?

 

[Navin Johnson]

Also, someone can be educated and successful yet still angry.

Yeah, take me for instance...

Take you where?

 

[rockaction]

Also, someone can be educated and successful yet still angry.

Yeah, take me for instance...

Take you where?

Nice. F. Scott Fitzgerald did that in Tender Is The Night

Rosemary: Take me
Richard: Take you where?

__________________________________________________________________________________

Rosemary put up her face quietly to be kissed. He looked at her for a moment as if he didn't understand. Then holding her in the hollow of his arm he rubbed his cheek against her cheek's softness, and then looked down at her for another long moment.

"Such a lovely child," he said gravely.

She smiled up at him; her hands playing conventionally with the lapels of his coat. "I'm in love with you and Nicole. Actually that's my secret—I can't even talk about you to anybody because I don't want any more people to know how wonderful you are. Honestly—I love you and Nicole—I do."

—So many times he had heard this—even the formula was the same.

Suddenly she came toward him, her youth vanishing as she passed inside the focus of his eyes and he had kissed her breathlessly as if she were any age at all. Then she lay back against his arm and sighed.

"I've decided to give you up," she said.

**** started—had he said anything to imply that she possessed any part of him?

"But that's very mean," he managed to say lightly, "just when I was getting interested."

"I've loved you so—" As if it had been for years. She was weeping a little now. "I've loved you so-o-o."

Then he should have laughed, but he heard himself saying, "Not only are you beautiful but you are somehow on the grand scale. Everything you do, like pretending to be in love or pretending to be shy gets across."

In the dark cave of the taxi, fragrant with the perfume Rosemary had bought with Nicole, she came close again, clinging to him. He kissed her without enjoying it. He knew that there was passion there, but there was no shadow of it in her eyes or on her mouth; there was a faint spray of champagne on her breath. She clung nearer desperately and once more he kissed her and was chilled by the innocence of her kiss, by the glance that at the moment of contact looked beyond him out into the darkness of the night, the darkness of the world. She did not know yet that splendor is something in the heart; at the moment when she realized that and melted into the passion of the universe he could take her without question or regret.

Her room in the hotel was diagonally across from theirs and nearer the elevator. When they reached the door she said suddenly:

"I know you don't love me—I don't expect it. But you said I should have told you about my birthday. Well, I did, and now for my birthday present I want you to come into my room a minute while I tell you something. Just one minute."

They went in and he closed the door, and Rosemary stood close to him, not touching him. The night had drawn the color from her face—she was pale as pale now, she was a white carnation left after a dance.

"When you smile—" He had recovered his paternal attitude, perhaps because of Nicole's silent proximity, "I always think I'll see a gap where you've lost some baby teeth."

But he was too late—she came close up against him with a forlorn whisper.

"Take me."

"Take you where?"

Astonishment froze him rigid.

"Go on," she whispered. "Oh, please go on, whatever they do. I don't care if I don't like it—I never expected to—I've always hated to think about it but now I don't. I want you to."

She was astonished at herself—she had never imagined she could talk like that. She was calling on things she had read, seen, dreamed through a decade of convent hours. Suddenly she knew too that it was one of her greatest roles and she flung herself into it more passionately.

 

[identikit]

So it's wide open 25-30 ft shots vs much closer contested ones....

 

[Navin Johnson]

I thought the discussion about how you don’t want the high variance plays when you’re up 20 was spot on. They honestly remind me of the way Lincoln Riley used to coach at OU - basically ignored game state which is dumb in a 7 game series.

But if a team is going to play drop coverage and take away driving lanes, what are you supposed to do if not take the wide open looks you are getting?

If you are working the clock then you are allowing the defense to dictate the look you are going to get. They need to move the ball, force ball side into help side and help side into ball side and look for a better shot earlier in the possession. If it shows up it shows up, but at least you don't allow the defense to gear up for a single action on a short clock. Reducing EV in the name of variance can be a disaster.

 

[rockaction]

And oh yeah, go Celtics!

 

[Navin Johnson]

Also, someone can be educated and successful yet still angry.

Yeah, take me for instance...

Take you where?

Nice. F Scott Fitzgerald did that in Tender Is The Night

Rosemary: Take me
Richard: Take you where?

__________________________________________________________________________________

Rosemary put up her face quietly to be kissed. He looked at her for a moment as if he didn't understand. Then holding her in the hollow of his arm he rubbed his cheek against her cheek's softness, and then looked down at her for another long moment.

"Such a lovely child," he said gravely.

She smiled up at him; her hands playing conventionally with the lapels of his coat. "I'm in love with you and Nicole. Actually that's my secret—I can't even talk about you to anybody because I don't want any more people to know how wonderful you are. Honestly—I love you and Nicole—I do."

—So many times he had heard this—even the formula was the same.

Suddenly she came toward him, her youth vanishing as she passed inside the focus of his eyes and he had kissed her breathlessly as if she were any age at all. Then she lay back against his arm and sighed.

"I've decided to give you up," she said.

**** started—had he said anything to imply that she possessed any part of him?

"But that's very mean," he managed to say lightly, "just when I was getting interested."

"I've loved you so—" As if it had been for years. She was weeping a little now. "I've loved you so-o-o."

Then he should have laughed, but he heard himself saying, "Not only are you beautiful but you are somehow on the grand scale. Everything you do, like pretending to be in love or pretending to be shy gets across."

In the dark cave of the taxi, fragrant with the perfume Rosemary had bought with Nicole, she came close again, clinging to him. He kissed her without enjoying it. He knew that there was passion there, but there was no shadow of it in her eyes or on her mouth; there was a faint spray of champagne on her breath. She clung nearer desperately and once more he kissed her and was chilled by the innocence of her kiss, by the glance that at the moment of contact looked beyond him out into the darkness of the night, the darkness of the world. She did not know yet that splendor is something in the heart; at the moment when she realized that and melted into the passion of the universe he could take her without question or regret.

Her room in the hotel was diagonally across from theirs and nearer the elevator. When they reached the door she said suddenly:

"I know you don't love me—I don't expect it. But you said I should have told you about my birthday. Well, I did, and now for my birthday present I want you to come into my room a minute while I tell you something. Just one minute."

They went in and he closed the door, and Rosemary stood close to him, not touching him. The night had drawn the color from her face—she was pale as pale now, she was a white carnation left after a dance.

"When you smile—" He had recovered his paternal attitude, perhaps because of Nicole's silent proximity, "I always think I'll see a gap where you've lost some baby teeth."

But he was too late—she came close up against him with a forlorn whisper.

"Take me."

"Take you where?"

Astonishment froze him rigid.

"Go on," she whispered. "Oh, please go on, whatever they do. I don't care if I don't like it—I never expected to—I've always hated to think about it but now I don't. I want you to."

She was astonished at herself—she had never imagined she could talk like that. She was calling on things she had read, seen, dreamed through a decade of convent hours. Suddenly she knew too that it was one of her greatest roles and she flung herself into it more passionately.

Hmm, I thought I was borrowing it from Wayne's world. It's been a while so I'm not sure

 

[rockaction]

Also, someone can be educated and successful yet still angry.

Yeah, take me for instance...

Take you where?

Nice. F Scott Fitzgerald did that in Tender Is The Night

Rosemary: Take me
Richard: Take you where?

__________________________________________________________________________________

Rosemary put up her face quietly to be kissed. He looked at her for a moment as if he didn't understand. Then holding her in the hollow of his arm he rubbed his cheek against her cheek's softness, and then looked down at her for another long moment.

"Such a lovely child," he said gravely.

She smiled up at him; her hands playing conventionally with the lapels of his coat. "I'm in love with you and Nicole. Actually that's my secret—I can't even talk about you to anybody because I don't want any more people to know how wonderful you are. Honestly—I love you and Nicole—I do."

—So many times he had heard this—even the formula was the same.

Suddenly she came toward him, her youth vanishing as she passed inside the focus of his eyes and he had kissed her breathlessly as if she were any age at all. Then she lay back against his arm and sighed.

"I've decided to give you up," she said.

**** started—had he said anything to imply that she possessed any part of him?

"But that's very mean," he managed to say lightly, "just when I was getting interested."

"I've loved you so—" As if it had been for years. She was weeping a little now. "I've loved you so-o-o."

Then he should have laughed, but he heard himself saying, "Not only are you beautiful but you are somehow on the grand scale. Everything you do, like pretending to be in love or pretending to be shy gets across."

In the dark cave of the taxi, fragrant with the perfume Rosemary had bought with Nicole, she came close again, clinging to him. He kissed her without enjoying it. He knew that there was passion there, but there was no shadow of it in her eyes or on her mouth; there was a faint spray of champagne on her breath. She clung nearer desperately and once more he kissed her and was chilled by the innocence of her kiss, by the glance that at the moment of contact looked beyond him out into the darkness of the night, the darkness of the world. She did not know yet that splendor is something in the heart; at the moment when she realized that and melted into the passion of the universe he could take her without question or regret.

Her room in the hotel was diagonally across from theirs and nearer the elevator. When they reached the door she said suddenly:

"I know you don't love me—I don't expect it. But you said I should have told you about my birthday. Well, I did, and now for my birthday present I want you to come into my room a minute while I tell you something. Just one minute."

They went in and he closed the door, and Rosemary stood close to him, not touching him. The night had drawn the color from her face—she was pale as pale now, she was a white carnation left after a dance.

"When you smile—" He had recovered his paternal attitude, perhaps because of Nicole's silent proximity, "I always think I'll see a gap where you've lost some baby teeth."

But he was too late—she came close up against him with a forlorn whisper.

"Take me."

"Take you where?"

Astonishment froze him rigid.

"Go on," she whispered. "Oh, please go on, whatever they do. I don't care if I don't like it—I never expected to—I've always hated to think about it but now I don't. I want you to."

She was astonished at herself—she had never imagined she could talk like that. She was calling on things she had read, seen, dreamed through a decade of convent hours. Suddenly she knew too that it was one of her greatest roles and she flung herself into it more passionately.

Hmm, I thought I was borrowing it from Wayne's world. It's been a while so I'm not sure

I think you're exactly right. I don't think many people know that quote from Fitzgerald. It's not required reading almost anywhere, so most people don't come across it. I laughed out loud when I first read it, but now that you mention it, I think Wayne's World totally did that gag. LOL.

eta* maybe not. AI says so. One thing I just learned: Wayne's World is painful to watch thirty-three years hence. Oof.

 

[Navin Johnson]

Also, someone can be educated and successful yet still angry.

Yeah, take me for instance...

Take you where?

Nice. F Scott Fitzgerald did that in Tender Is The Night

Rosemary: Take me
Richard: Take you where?

__________________________________________________________________________________

Rosemary put up her face quietly to be kissed. He looked at her for a moment as if he didn't understand. Then holding her in the hollow of his arm he rubbed his cheek against her cheek's softness, and then looked down at her for another long moment.

"Such a lovely child," he said gravely.

She smiled up at him; her hands playing conventionally with the lapels of his coat. "I'm in love with you and Nicole. Actually that's my secret—I can't even talk about you to anybody because I don't want any more people to know how wonderful you are. Honestly—I love you and Nicole—I do."

—So many times he had heard this—even the formula was the same.

Suddenly she came toward him, her youth vanishing as she passed inside the focus of his eyes and he had kissed her breathlessly as if she were any age at all. Then she lay back against his arm and sighed.

"I've decided to give you up," she said.

**** started—had he said anything to imply that she possessed any part of him?

"But that's very mean," he managed to say lightly, "just when I was getting interested."

"I've loved you so—" As if it had been for years. She was weeping a little now. "I've loved you so-o-o."

Then he should have laughed, but he heard himself saying, "Not only are you beautiful but you are somehow on the grand scale. Everything you do, like pretending to be in love or pretending to be shy gets across."

In the dark cave of the taxi, fragrant with the perfume Rosemary had bought with Nicole, she came close again, clinging to him. He kissed her without enjoying it. He knew that there was passion there, but there was no shadow of it in her eyes or on her mouth; there was a faint spray of champagne on her breath. She clung nearer desperately and once more he kissed her and was chilled by the innocence of her kiss, by the glance that at the moment of contact looked beyond him out into the darkness of the night, the darkness of the world. She did not know yet that splendor is something in the heart; at the moment when she realized that and melted into the passion of the universe he could take her without question or regret.

Her room in the hotel was diagonally across from theirs and nearer the elevator. When they reached the door she said suddenly:

"I know you don't love me—I don't expect it. But you said I should have told you about my birthday. Well, I did, and now for my birthday present I want you to come into my room a minute while I tell you something. Just one minute."

They went in and he closed the door, and Rosemary stood close to him, not touching him. The night had drawn the color from her face—she was pale as pale now, she was a white carnation left after a dance.

"When you smile—" He had recovered his paternal attitude, perhaps because of Nicole's silent proximity, "I always think I'll see a gap where you've lost some baby teeth."

But he was too late—she came close up against him with a forlorn whisper.

"Take me."

"Take you where?"

Astonishment froze him rigid.

"Go on," she whispered. "Oh, please go on, whatever they do. I don't care if I don't like it—I never expected to—I've always hated to think about it but now I don't. I want you to."

She was astonished at herself—she had never imagined she could talk like that. She was calling on things she had read, seen, dreamed through a decade of convent hours. Suddenly she knew too that it was one of her greatest roles and she flung herself into it more passionately.

Hmm, I thought I was borrowing it from Wayne's world. It's been a while so I'm not sure

I think you're exactly right. I don't think many people know that quote from Fitzgerald. It's not required reading almost anywhere, so most people don't come across it. I laughed out loud when I first read it, but now that you mention it, I think Wayne's World totally did that gag. LOL.

I'm trying to become more well read in my old age. I'll add that to my list.

 

[the moops]

So it's wide open 25-30 ft shots vs much closer contested ones....

Yes. Boston shot 40.7% on wide open threes this season, generating a ridiculous 1.221 points per possession. No chance Boston, or anyone is going to shoot 61% on contested midrange jumpers

 

[Dez]

I still can't believe Cavs lost that game 2. Everyone always says 1 call doesn't beat you but when it is 1 of the last calls of the game it sure does.

They don't really call lane violations in the NBA but there were 2 in the final 48 secs costing the Cavs 5 pts.

The guy who dunked it was 3 feet inside the 3 point line before the ball left the hand and then Haliburton was clearly over the line on the rebound when he then took the step back 3.

Annoying as hell still Cavs should won but WTF

 

[identikit]

So it's wide open 25-30 ft shots vs much closer contested ones....

Yes. Boston shot 40.7% on wide open threes this season, generating a ridiculous 1.221 points per possession. No chance Boston, or anyone is going to shoot 61% on contested midrange jumpers

That's some serious mathing

61%

 

[the moops]

So it's wide open 25-30 ft shots vs much closer contested ones....

Yes. Boston shot 40.7% on wide open threes this season, generating a ridiculous 1.221 points per possession. No chance Boston, or anyone is going to shoot 61% on contested midrange jumpers

That's some serious mathing

61%

Huh?

 

[msudaisy26]

I keep hearing podcast folks - knowledgable basketball guys that I like and respect - talk about how the Knicks defense was really good and they showed grit and hustle and that is the main reason they beat Boston. I am skeptical. The reason they won was because Boston missed every single one of these wide open shots. Half of these NY didn't even try to defend the shooter

Derrick White

Al Horford

Jrue Holiday

Jayson Tatum

Payton Pritchard

I thought that the most recent Matt Lowe podcast explained the why of the Celtics failures on offense. Not going to try to reiterate the details, but made sense to me...

It's worth a listen IMO...

Zach Lowe?

I listened. I was unconvinced. I mean sure, they can tighten things up a bit, but their entire offense the entire Mazzulla era has been about getting these clean looks from three. For White to go 0-7 on those looks rarely happens. Same with Horford's 0-5. Ans on and on.

Yup. And they literally needed just 1 (maybe 2 to be safe) to go down to win either game.

I suppose the Knicks could have had 1 more, even 2 more go down also?

They were 6.9% less effective on 3s in that last game, compared to their regular season average.

Don't shooting percentages and efficiency usually go down a little in the playoffs? If so I feel like 6.9 percent is in range, maybe a little on the low end.

 

[identikit]

I keep hearing podcast folks - knowledgable basketball guys that I like and respect - talk about how the Knicks defense was really good and they showed grit and hustle and that is the main reason they beat Boston. I am skeptical. The reason they won was because Boston missed every single one of these wide open shots. Half of these NY didn't even try to defend the shooter

Derrick White

Al Horford

Jrue Holiday

Jayson Tatum

Payton Pritchard

I thought that the most recent Matt Lowe podcast explained the why of the Celtics failures on offense. Not going to try to reiterate the details, but made sense to me...

It's worth a listen IMO...

Zach Lowe?

I listened. I was unconvinced. I mean sure, they can tighten things up a bit, but their entire offense the entire Mazzulla era has been about getting these clean looks from three. For White to go 0-7 on those looks rarely happens. Same with Horford's 0-5. Ans on and on.

Yup. And they literally needed just 1 (maybe 2 to be safe) to go down to win either game.

I suppose the Knicks could have had 1 more, even 2 more go down also?

They were 6.9% less effective on 3s in that last game, compared to their regular season average.

Don't shooting percentages and efficiency usually go down a little in the playoffs? If so I feel like 6.9 percent is in range, maybe a little on the low end.

Likely true across the board

But the argument was 'only 1-2 more shots going down'

I think there's room for that with both teams, on just about any given night

 

[cheese]

I still can't believe Cavs lost that game 2. Everyone always says 1 call doesn't beat you but when it is 1 of the last calls of the game it sure does.

They don't really call lane violations in the NBA but there were 2 in the final 48 secs costing the Cavs 5 pts.

The guy who dunked it was 3 feet inside the 3 point line before the ball left the hand and then Haliburton was clearly over the line on the rebound when he then took the step back 3.

Annoying as hell still Cavs should won but WTF

I know it isn't your point and they dont call it, but I wonder if getting the double lane violation is a good strategy down 2 with 1 FT left. There were a ton of people in the lane so it would have been a jump ball which in a lot of ways is preferable to either a make or a miss for the shooting team. Maybe just tell your team to go early and assume the other team reacts and goes too? Jump ball is a good result in that instance.

 

[msudaisy26]

I still can't believe Cavs lost that game 2. Everyone always says 1 call doesn't beat you but when it is 1 of the last calls of the game it sure does.

They don't really call lane violations in the NBA but there were 2 in the final 48 secs costing the Cavs 5 pts.

The guy who dunked it was 3 feet inside the 3 point line before the ball left the hand and then Haliburton was clearly over the line on the rebound when he then took the step back 3.

Annoying as hell still Cavs should won but WTF

They were up seven with 48 seconds left and had trouble rebounding and inbounding the ball from that time until the end of the game because they were gassed from being down three players that play major minutes.

Those calls wouldn't even be called in a middle school game.

 

[msudaisy26]

I keep hearing podcast folks - knowledgable basketball guys that I like and respect - talk about how the Knicks defense was really good and they showed grit and hustle and that is the main reason they beat Boston. I am skeptical. The reason they won was because Boston missed every single one of these wide open shots. Half of these NY didn't even try to defend the shooter

Derrick White

Al Horford

Jrue Holiday

Jayson Tatum

Payton Pritchard

I thought that the most recent Matt Lowe podcast explained the why of the Celtics failures on offense. Not going to try to reiterate the details, but made sense to me...

It's worth a listen IMO...

Zach Lowe?

I listened. I was unconvinced. I mean sure, they can tighten things up a bit, but their entire offense the entire Mazzulla era has been about getting these clean looks from three. For White to go 0-7 on those looks rarely happens. Same with Horford's 0-5. Ans on and on.

Yup. And they literally needed just 1 (maybe 2 to be safe) to go down to win either game.

I suppose the Knicks could have had 1 more, even 2 more go down also?

They were 6.9% less effective on 3s in that last game, compared to their regular season average.

Don't shooting percentages and efficiency usually go down a little in the playoffs? If so I feel like 6.9 percent is in range, maybe a little on the low end.

Likely true across the board

But the argument was 'only 1-2 more shots going down'

I think there's room for that with both teams, on just about any given night

That is fair, but I think it is a little different when the Celtics just shot that poorly and have missed a record number of threes in two games.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

Interesting chart half way down on Clutch Efficiency https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nba/ar...ar-struggles-in-clutch-moments-175527436.html

 

[the moops]

I keep hearing podcast folks - knowledgable basketball guys that I like and respect - talk about how the Knicks defense was really good and they showed grit and hustle and that is the main reason they beat Boston. I am skeptical. The reason they won was because Boston missed every single one of these wide open shots. Half of these NY didn't even try to defend the shooter

Derrick White

Al Horford

Jrue Holiday

Jayson Tatum

Payton Pritchard

I thought that the most recent Matt Lowe podcast explained the why of the Celtics failures on offense. Not going to try to reiterate the details, but made sense to me...

It's worth a listen IMO...

Zach Lowe?

I listened. I was unconvinced. I mean sure, they can tighten things up a bit, but their entire offense the entire Mazzulla era has been about getting these clean looks from three. For White to go 0-7 on those looks rarely happens. Same with Horford's 0-5. Ans on and on.

Yup. And they literally needed just 1 (maybe 2 to be safe) to go down to win either game.

I suppose the Knicks could have had 1 more, even 2 more go down also?

They were 6.9% less effective on 3s in that last game, compared to their regular season average.

Don't shooting percentages and efficiency usually go down a little in the playoffs? If so I feel like 6.9 percent is in range, maybe a little on the low end.

If Boston shot 6.9% worse that their regular season numbers they would have scored an additional 15 points over these past 2 games.

 

[identikit]

Shoulda woulda coulda

 

[Capella]

The Knicks were roughly 6.5% worse in both games than the regular season too. Who cares. Don’t hero dribble the ball into the corner into the other team’s best two help defenders as time runs out just because you want to be Kobe.

 

[msudaisy26]

The Pacers are a lot of fun and scrappy.

 

[the moops]

The Knicks were roughly 6.5% worse in both games than the regular season too. Who cares. Don’t hero dribble the ball into the corner into the other team’s best two help defenders as time runs out just because you want to be Kobe.

Where are you guys getting these numbers? The Knicks are shooting .13% better from three this series

 

[msudaisy26]

That is a really odd clear path call.

 

[msudaisy26]

Playoff Mitchell is pretty fun as well.

 

[Mister CIA]

Ooh, playoffs are so physical.

Terrible call

 

[identikit]

Never say die Pacers

 

[identikit]

Convincing win for the Cavaliers....

 

[Dez]

I still can't believe Cavs lost that game 2. Everyone always says 1 call doesn't beat you but when it is 1 of the last calls of the game it sure does.

They don't really call lane violations in the NBA but there were 2 in the final 48 secs costing the Cavs 5 pts.

The guy who dunked it was 3 feet inside the 3 point line before the ball left the hand and then Haliburton was clearly over the line on the rebound when he then took the step back 3.

Annoying as hell still Cavs should won but WTF

They were up seven with 48 seconds left and had trouble rebounding and inbounding the ball from that time until the end of the game because they were gassed from being down three players that play major minutes.

Those calls wouldn't even be called in a middle school game.

The dude was 3 feet inside the 3 point live on the dunk I seen that live he was in so early in college it would been called so get the F out of here saying it wouldn't be called in middle school

Did you watch the ACC tournament and North Carolina down 1 with 1 FT with 2 secs left and they called a lane violation taking away the made FT ?

Nope you probably didn't

When you get fawked by the refs what are you supposed to do. They were up 7 they should won but it is harder when the refs allow the Pacers to hold the Cavs every time they tried to inbound the ball in the final minute and allow them to bang the hell out of you bringing the ball up the court every time down.

FN prison rules

Also works out better when you don't have 3 of your top 6 guys down.

Series comes down to game 4 whoever wins game 4 likely wins the series now after the real Cavs stood up tonight

 

[Dez]

The Pacers are a lot of fun and scrappy.

Not really more like dirty a hole thugs

 

[Dez]

4 pts tonight for Mr Over rated well played. No running over the FT line before the ball hits the rim to bail you out tonight buddy.

 

[Jayrod]

I think Dez is a Cavs fan...

 

[msudaisy26]

I think Dez is a Cavs fan...

I really l wish the Cavs fans that were posting after game one and two were in here tonight. Wonder what is different?

 

[rockaction]

Anybody want more F. Scott Fitzgerald quotes or should we let Dez have the floor?

 

[Master of Subservience]

Anybody want more F. Scott Fitzgerald quotes or should we let Dez have the floor?

Even Scott Gerald R. Ford quotes would do

 

[Moe.]

Interesting half - both Jokic and Shai are playing like crap. Jokic entering Luka territory, burning too many calories trying to work the refs.

 

[Jayrod]

I'm neutral on this game, but it feels like Jay Bilas has a mancrush on OKC.

He was continually raving about their defense even while Denver was going on a run to take the lead and the Thunder gave up some easy baskets. Their defense is great, but it was like he was ignoring the actual game at times.

 

[Navin Johnson]

I still can't believe Cavs lost that game 2. Everyone always says 1 call doesn't beat you but when it is 1 of the last calls of the game it sure does.

They don't really call lane violations in the NBA but there were 2 in the final 48 secs costing the Cavs 5 pts.

The guy who dunked it was 3 feet inside the 3 point line before the ball left the hand and then Haliburton was clearly over the line on the rebound when he then took the step back 3.

Annoying as hell still Cavs should won but WTF

I know it isn't your point and they dont call it, but I wonder if getting the double lane violation is a good strategy down 2 with 1 FT left. There were a ton of people in the lane so it would have been a jump ball which in a lot of ways is preferable to either a make or a miss for the shooting team. Maybe just tell your team to go early and assume the other team reacts and goes too? Jump ball is a good result in that instance.

I don't think it's a jump ball.

 

[Navin Johnson]

Anybody want more F. Scott Fitzgerald quotes or should we let Dez have the floor?

PM sent

 

[Moe.]

Shai has got to take charge and get to the rim as much as possible