I don't think Duncan watched any Lakers game post all-star break. I take his analysis of our guys with a grain of salt.
Anyways, good job fellas.
Yeah. If he were honest, he'd probably say he watched less than 5 Lakers game in totality. I mean, why would you if you're covering the rest of the NBA? Nothing to see here.
This is the dirty little secret of the general NBA guys. Nate's a smart guy, but yeah...
That being said, our fanbase at the same time accurately overrates our own guys. Sort of an oxymoron.
That is definitely true for fan bases in general especially towards young players due to the fact that potential and hope are intertwined. One sees the potential and hopes that the player will get there. Feeling of hope usually comes with optimism.
Boston is pretty high on Jaylen but I don't think he is all that. Maybe they aren't too high on Ingram for the exact same reasons.
I try to take a step back and look at it from an outside perspective but sometimes I'm in too deep. Bought too much stock.
Yeah. It's the Brown v. Ingram test. Remember, Ingram genuinely put up horrific numbers for most of the season save 1 good month. Brown was on the bench due to the Celtics depth, but was playing rotational minutes in the playoffs. I'm sure Lakers fans think he's trash; Celtics fans probably point to Ingram's horrid stats and say he's trash. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
I'm at the point with D'Angelo where I like it being somewhat of a secret that he's actully promising _________________ Austin Reaves
Tweeter: @sarah_dotbiz
Yeah that pod was kinda whack. Maybe I'm in my own Lakers bubble but ehhh
No idea how you could be so high on Murray and not Russell. And Mudiay?
My question to him regarding the best PGs Under 25 was obviously rhetorical, to kinda put this in perspective. I wanted to illuminate the fact that this is who he was lumping Russell in with.
It didn't even sound like he though of Russell as highly as he does Murray which is, again, crazy. Even the smartest basketball minds somehow go back to reputation and talking points when talking about him _________________ Austin Reaves
Tweeter: @sarah_dotbiz
It didn't even sound like he though of Russell as highly as he does Murray which is, again, crazy. Even the smartest basketball minds somehow go back to reputation and talking points when talking about him
It's b/c he caught more Denver games. I listen to his podcast religiously and he had more Denver recaps then Lakers. Why would anyone care, nationally, about the Lakers? _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
GT or anyone who knows, where did you come across that stat that upwards of 50% of NBA possessions are in transition or semi-transition?
That's anecdotal, from me. And it's not transition/semi-transition vs. half court, it's early offense principles vs. set plays. That's my rough estimate based on chopping footage of a bunch of games.
GT or anyone who knows, where did you come across that stat that upwards of 50% of NBA possessions are in transition or semi-transition?
That's anecdotal, from me. And it's not transition/semi-transition vs. half court, it's early offense principles vs. set plays. That's my rough estimate based on chopping footage of a bunch of games.
Son really listed Mudiay. He wasn't completely against our guys, but I just don't like his gauge. Although he watches way more hoop than me and knows more about the league... He still trippin
GT or anyone who knows, where did you come across that stat that upwards of 50% of NBA possessions are in transition or semi-transition?
That's anecdotal, from me. And it's not transition/semi-transition vs. half court, it's early offense principles vs. set plays. That's my rough estimate based on chopping footage of a bunch of games.
It seems like with all the speed on the floor transition continues to be among the most important parts of a team's offensive potency. One concept I think is interesting is a defensive strategy that allows teams to increase the proportion of offensive opportunities in transition/early offense compared to half court action. The old school answer to that is getting stops, but that's not really the way it works in today's NBA with the rule changes. It's more about efficiency decisions.
If you start with the assumption your opponent is going to score on about half of their possessions, how do you maximize transition/EO play for the other half? Maybe even taking that a step farther, how do you look for transition/EO off of makes (e.g. release on a shot). All of that goes back to what you 'give' as a defense. There are some interesting choices to make there and all of it increases the importance of intelligent coaching. You need the horses but setting up the right structure and making the right tweaks on the fly are a critical part of the formula.
I think D'Antoni sets the structure really well. Houston is fine playing Lou, Gordon and Harden because they think they will score more efficiently on your misses than you will on your makes. The Nash Suns were the same way. The downside for MD is that while he sets the structure well, he's not much for on the fly tweaking. He pretty much has one bullet in the chamber whereas guys like Pop, Kerr, Spolestra and Stevens can bend the game real time. It remains to be seen if Walton has those chops because he's still trying to put the template in.
I feel like Lonzo and Russell could combine to be pretty deadly as two guys that can handle, pass, shoot, playmake and have the size to be flexible on defense, especially on less concerned about stops on given possessions and more concerned about forcing a certain combination of shots over the course off a game from the opponent. _________________ Austin Reaves keeps his game tight, like Kobe Bryant on game night.
It didn't even sound like he though of Russell as highly as he does Murray which is, again, crazy. Even the smartest basketball minds somehow go back to reputation and talking points when talking about him
It's b/c he caught more Denver games. I listen to his podcast religiously and he had more Denver recaps then Lakers. Why would anyone care, nationally, about the Lakers?
I think Nate and Danny genuinely have interest in all the teams (plus there's a very real economic and business incentive to care about the Lakers) but there's a difference between being a bad team and a tanking team. A bad team can still be compelling, but from their perspective, once a team stops trying to be competitive, there's a lot less meaningful stuff to learn from watching them.
GT, heard your pod with Chris Axmann and on the discussion of Randle at Center, CA said unlike Draymond, Randle didn't have the wingspan. Here are the numbers from their respective combines:
Doesn't seem to be that big a difference and what there is seems to be offset by Randle being a bit bigger.
IMO the difference stems from (a) Green having been coached much better over an extended period and (b) Randle having a bit of that AAU bug that led him to lean on talent more than learning the game. _________________ Austin Reaves keeps his game tight, like Kobe Bryant on game night.
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:54 pm Post subject:
Jakanzi wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
justsomelakerfan wrote:
It didn't even sound like he though of Russell as highly as he does Murray which is, again, crazy. Even the smartest basketball minds somehow go back to reputation and talking points when talking about him
It's b/c he caught more Denver games. I listen to his podcast religiously and he had more Denver recaps then Lakers. Why would anyone care, nationally, about the Lakers?
I think Nate and Danny genuinely have interest in all the teams (plus there's a very real economic and business incentive to care about the Lakers) but there's a difference between being a bad team and a tanking team. A bad team can still be compelling, but from their perspective, once a team stops trying to be competitive, there's a lot less meaningful stuff to learn from watching them.
The latest What's on Draft has half the pod dedicated to the Lakers, and their takes are as good as it gets for being non-Laker guys. Maybe because they're draft guys, they'll spend more time on watching the bad teams. Or because they're on the same radio network as GT, and listen to his pod .
GT, heard your pod with Chris Axmann and on the discussion of Randle at Center, CA said unlike Draymond, Randle didn't have the wingspan. Here are the numbers from their respective combines:
Doesn't seem to be that big a difference and what there is seems to be offset by Randle being a bit bigger.
IMO the difference stems from (a) Green having been coached much better over an extended period and (b) Randle having a bit of that AAU bug that led him to lean on talent more than learning the game.
I thought Draymond Green is 6'7"???
Since Randle will be in his contract year, will this motivate him to play serious D?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum