Magic Johnson breaks down the Lakers Young Core
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MJST
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26089

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:38 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
Deathstroke wrote:
67ShelbyGT wrote:
Yet, the 2 times that his team needed the most clutch shots of his life, it was Ray Allen and Kyrie that saved him from being an 1-ring pony.

Stats are good only with context or else they can easily be manipulated to support any argument. ESPN is the king of this tactic.


This is the dagger right here.


Just as Fisher and Horry saved Kobe from losing out on a couple of rings. Surprise, it takes a team to win a title. That is why using titles in individual comparisons is so dumb.


Do you honestly think that if we'd lost game 4 against the Magic that they would have beaten us? Seriously?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:39 pm    Post subject:

Pau and Ron saved us in game 7 against the Celtics too. That's what good teammates are for.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MJST
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26089

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:54 pm    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
Pau and Ron saved us in game 7 against the Celtics too. That's what good teammates are for.


Yep, they got us back in it.

However what people forget was that Kobe's jumper that caused Doc to have to call the time out was what sealed it.

Kobe had been off all game but when the moment came, he hit that jumper that caused Doc to have to call that time out and all we had to do at that point was maintain and hold onto it, but that created the true separation.


Also, clutch is more than just the jumpers you make, it's the plays you make, and Kobe's rebounding and what he did on both ends of the floor that night were as clutch and as vital to our team as the jumpers we also hit that night.


The unfortunate truth is that "clutch" is determined more so by "making a jumper" primarily as opposed to the plays you make. If Kobe brought our team back from 15 down but Blake hit the 3 with 2 minutes remaining, he gets a 'clutch' statistic and Kobe does not.

This is the kind of problems with trying to actually classify 'clutch' to a stat and base it around a jump shot primarily.

Same can be said of anyone. If the Lakers are up by 1 and he is defending the other team's best player and he gets the steal that winds up winning the game for the Lakers, that doesn't go down as 'clutch' cause he didn't hit a jumper.

Same can be said, if Dwight Howard blocks what would have been the game winning layup in the final seconds of a game, it doesn't go down as 'clutch' because he didn't make a jumper.

They say Kobe's game 7 performance wasn't clutch' because he missed jumpers, whilst ignoring he not only hit the pivotal distance creating jumper that forced the time out but he also ripped down the rebounds and gave everything he had on the other end too to make sure we won that game.


But 'stats' won't say it. Even if Kobe makes the pass to Artest for the big 3 everyone remembers, Kobe doesn't get any sort of stat beyond an assist for making that play.


This is why you can't create a 'stat' for "clutch" unless you encompass every single potential play it comes in. But they aren't gonna do that, ever. So its best left alone.

Any stat that tells you Jason Terry is the guy you want taking the last shot over Carmelo or Kobe is not a stat to take seriously.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:55 pm    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Pau and Ron saved us in game 7 against the Celtics too. That's what good teammates are for.


Yep, they got us back in it.

However what people forget was that Kobe's jumper that caused Doc to have to call the time out was what sealed it.

Kobe had been off all game but when the moment came, he hit that jumper that caused Doc to have to call that time out and all we had to do at that point was maintain and hold onto it, but that created the true separation.


Also, clutch is more than just the jumpers you make, it's the plays you make, and Kobe's rebounding and what he did on both ends of the floor that night were as clutch and as vital to our team as the jumpers we also hit that night.


The unfortunate truth is that "clutch" is determined more so by "making a jumper" primarily as opposed to the plays you make. If Kobe brought our team back from 15 down but Blake hit the 3 with 2 minutes remaining, he gets a 'clutch' statistic and Kobe does not.

This is the kind of problems with trying to actually classify 'clutch' to a stat and base it around a jump shot primarily.

Same can be said of anyone. If the Lakers are up by 1 and he is defending the other team's best player and he gets the steal that winds up winning the game for the Lakers, that doesn't go down as 'clutch' cause he didn't hit a jumper.

Same can be said, if Dwight Howard blocks what would have been the game winning layup in the final seconds of a game, it doesn't go down as 'clutch' because he didn't make a jumper.

They say Kobe's game 7 performance wasn't clutch' because he missed jumpers, whilst ignoring he not only hit the pivotal distance creating jumper that forced the time out but he also ripped down the rebounds and gave everything he had on the other end too to make sure we won that game.


But 'stats' won't say it. Even if Kobe makes the pass to Artest for the big 3 everyone remembers, Kobe doesn't get any sort of stat beyond an assist for making that play.


This is why you can't create a 'stat' for "clutch" unless you encompass every single potential play it comes in. But they aren't gonna do that, ever. So its best left alone.

Any stat that tells you Jason Terry is the guy you want taking the last shot over Carmelo or Kobe is not a stat to take seriously.


Without those guys picking up the slack, methinks we may have had a different conversation if we lost to the Celtics in Game 7.

Thank goodness we won that game, and thank goodness that along with Kobe, we had guys like Pau and Artest who played superbly when our unquestioned #1 guy was having a tough game.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lakers_Jester
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 Sep 2012
Posts: 5366

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:58 pm    Post subject:

the association wrote:
Lakers_Jester wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Lakers_Jester wrote:
just making due with what his front office provided him with. The level of difficulty on that is much greater


Not necessarily. Let's take Bird and Magic who played with Hall of Fame teammates their entire careers. Their "level of difficulty" for "making due with what their front office provided" was zero. In fact, I think it would have been extraordinarily difficult for them to leave as free agents and improve their situation. So why should they get extra credit for staying put, when staying put was the easiest way for them to win?


I see your point that in some cases it actually helped the player to stand pat with their franchise (in retrospect), however, my point is similar to this comparison: winning the world series of poker with the hands you were dealt vs winning the world series of poke by going into the deck and picking cards u want from the deck. Sure u might get luckier and win with the hands you are dealt but the person who hand picks cards from a portion of the deck has it much easier wouldn't u say?


venturalakersfan wrote:
You can say that 10,000 times and it still wouldn't be accurate. Kobe succeeded with other stars, and didn't without other stars. Same with pretty much every other player in the NBA.


U r right that kobe had other stars but thats not my point. my point is kobe didn't leave and hand pick star free agents to team up with in free agency to make his goal dramatically more attainable. It's like if lebron had stayed in Cleveland his entire career and won 5 out of 7 chips, wouldn't you value those more than the 3 out of 7 he's currently won hopping between superteams? Even after that significant advantage, he's still basically 3 out of 7 in the finals. Compare that to teams like the spurs, mavs, lakers, pistons, and warriors who did it the old fashioned way. Kobe could have left lakers or demanded a trade during the post shaq and pre pau days (heck even after the 2011 loss) and won perhaps another chip or two the way shaq tried to do when he became a ring chaser, but kobe didnt and still won 5 out of 7. Duncan has 5 with the same team that was practically entirely developed from the ground up. Is that not more comendable? Is that not more difficult to do? To rely on your front office to provide you with pieces you must make fit together rather than going out and selecting some of the best pieces available that fit your liking. Kobe had to hope his franchise made it easier on him, lebron made it easier on himself.


Wrong ... he very publicly demanded a trade. Both after Shaq left and earlier in his career, as well. Get your facts straight, since you've done this thousands of times.


U r right. He did publicly ask to be traded throughout his career, but he didn't actually get traded at any point in time, nor did he ever leave in free agency. So very clearly my point still stands that kobe had to make due with what he was provided. Anything else? You couldn't see through the "transparency" of my post on that one to see the overall point? or did you really think such a petty correction actually made a relevant difference to the overall point of my argument? At least the claim on your part wasnt completely presumptive for once, so that's great progress for you!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:03 pm    Post subject:

Lakers_Jester wrote:


U r right. He did publicly ask to be traded throughout his career, but he didn't actually get traded at any point in time, nor did he ever leave in free agency. So very clearly my point still stands that kobe had to make due with what he was provided. Anything else? You couldn't see through the "transparency" of my post on that one to see the overall point? or did you really think such a petty correction actually made a relevant difference to the overall point of my argument? At least the claim on your part wasnt completely presumptive for once, so that's great progress for you!


It never ceases to amaze me when someone else throws (bleep) out into the wind, and then says "You know what I meant!" when the wind blows the (bleep) back into their face. It happens too often in real life, too. Personally, I try not to do that because I don't enjoy (bleep) in my face. And if I'm not having a stroke or suffering in some fit of intellectual torpor, why distort the facts and then expect a mulligan ... ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:19 pm    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Deathstroke wrote:
67ShelbyGT wrote:
Yet, the 2 times that his team needed the most clutch shots of his life, it was Ray Allen and Kyrie that saved him from being an 1-ring pony.

Stats are good only with context or else they can easily be manipulated to support any argument. ESPN is the king of this tactic.


This is the dagger right here.


Just as Fisher and Horry saved Kobe from losing out on a couple of rings. Surprise, it takes a team to win a title. That is why using titles in individual comparisons is so dumb.


Do you honestly think that if we'd lost game 4 against the Magic that they would have beaten us? Seriously?


I honestly think we lose to the Kings if not for Horry's clutch shot. And to the Spurs if not for Fish outdoing TD's clutch shot.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.


Last edited by venturalakersfan on Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lakers_Jester
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 Sep 2012
Posts: 5366

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:19 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Lakers_Jester wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Lakers_Jester wrote:
just making due with what his front office provided him with. The level of difficulty on that is much greater


Not necessarily. Let's take Bird and Magic who played with Hall of Fame teammates their entire careers. Their "level of difficulty" for "making due with what their front office provided" was zero. In fact, I think it would have been extraordinarily difficult for them to leave as free agents and improve their situation. So why should they get extra credit for staying put, when staying put was the easiest way for them to win?


I see your point that in some cases it actually helped the player to stand pat with their franchise (in retrospect), however, my point is similar to this comparison: winning the world series of poker with the hands you were dealt vs winning the world series of poke by going into the deck and picking cards u want from the deck. Sure u might get luckier and win with the hands you are dealt but the person who hand picks cards from a portion of the deck has it much easier wouldn't u say?



The analogy doesn't work. In poker, you are dealt five cards and then you have the options of drawing more. You don't have to decide in advance to play the hand you're dealt or not

Same with the NBA. At certain periods, you can become a free agent and decide to stay or go, depending on which option looks better in terms of money, chances of winning, and other factors that are important to you. You don't have to decide to stay on the same team forever -- just for the length of your contract.

Personally, I don't buy into the sports loyalty myth. I figure players and teams will both do whatever is in their best self-interest, and "loyalty" is just a case of those self-interests being aligned.

I don't think winning 6 rings with 1 team is a greater achievement than winning 6 rings with 3 teams. I don't see it being any more noble to stay on a team that improves by signing free agents and making trades than in moving to another team as a free agent to team up with those same players.

I think every superstar in NBA history would gladly surround himself with an overwhelming and disproportionate amount of talent if he could. None of them wants to do more with less. They want to do more with more and more and more. That's true of Lebron, Kobe, MJ, Magic and Bird.


I see what you're saying. I never really thought of it that way especially the underlined. I guess it would depend based on the individual but for the most part you're probably right. That's enlightening.

The clutch stat as the determinant of "clutchness" though I still refute. Still think kobe is clutchier than lebron.

On topic 3Angelo so far is the clutchiest, he can get his own shot pretty much on demand. He has idefiable go to moves that he makes at high %.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:28 pm    Post subject:

Lakers_Jester wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Lakers_Jester wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Lakers_Jester wrote:
just making due with what his front office provided him with. The level of difficulty on that is much greater


Not necessarily. Let's take Bird and Magic who played with Hall of Fame teammates their entire careers. Their "level of difficulty" for "making due with what their front office provided" was zero. In fact, I think it would have been extraordinarily difficult for them to leave as free agents and improve their situation. So why should they get extra credit for staying put, when staying put was the easiest way for them to win?


I see your point that in some cases it actually helped the player to stand pat with their franchise (in retrospect), however, my point is similar to this comparison: winning the world series of poker with the hands you were dealt vs winning the world series of poke by going into the deck and picking cards u want from the deck. Sure u might get luckier and win with the hands you are dealt but the person who hand picks cards from a portion of the deck has it much easier wouldn't u say?



The analogy doesn't work. In poker, you are dealt five cards and then you have the options of drawing more. You don't have to decide in advance to play the hand you're dealt or not

Same with the NBA. At certain periods, you can become a free agent and decide to stay or go, depending on which option looks better in terms of money, chances of winning, and other factors that are important to you. You don't have to decide to stay on the same team forever -- just for the length of your contract.

Personally, I don't buy into the sports loyalty myth. I figure players and teams will both do whatever is in their best self-interest, and "loyalty" is just a case of those self-interests being aligned.

I don't think winning 6 rings with 1 team is a greater achievement than winning 6 rings with 3 teams. I don't see it being any more noble to stay on a team that improves by signing free agents and making trades than in moving to another team as a free agent to team up with those same players.

I think every superstar in NBA history would gladly surround himself with an overwhelming and disproportionate amount of talent if he could. None of them wants to do more with less. They want to do more with more and more and more. That's true of Lebron, Kobe, MJ, Magic and Bird.


I see what you're saying. I never really thought of it that way especially the underlined. I guess it would depend based on the individual but for the most part you're probably right. That's enlightening.

The clutch stat as the determinant of "clutchness" though I still refute. Still think kobe is clutchier than lebron.

On topic 3Angelo so far is the clutchiest, he can get his own shot pretty much on demand. He has idefiable go to moves that he makes at high %.



I agree with you that no one has developed a reliable statistical way to capture "clutch."

The thing someone like Kobe has going for him is he can get off an acceptably decent shot in hard conditions. That is really the reason he wins these "who do you want to take the last shot" polls.

Lebron is just as likely to draw opponents to him and pass to an open teammate for a decent shot. I don't see that as some do here of him being afraid to shoot; his game is more about driving and going into the lane and hitting the open man while Kobe is more of a iso shooter.

But, like I said, clutch can't be measured well, so our views of clutch are colored by the shots we remember; exciting moments; and what players we like/dislike.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:39 pm    Post subject:

And clutch shouldn't be limited to shooting, you can be clutch rebounding, assisting and defending.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lakers_Jester
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 Sep 2012
Posts: 5366

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:44 pm    Post subject:

the association wrote:
Lakers_Jester wrote:


U r right. He did publicly ask to be traded throughout his career, but he didn't actually get traded at any point in time, nor did he ever leave in free agency. So very clearly my point still stands that kobe had to make due with what he was provided. Anything else? You couldn't see through the "transparency" of my post on that one to see the overall point? or did you really think such a petty correction actually made a relevant difference to the overall point of my argument? At least the claim on your part wasnt completely presumptive for once, so that's great progress for you!


It never ceases to amaze me when someone else throws (bleep) out into the wind, and then says "You know what I meant!" when the wind blows the (bleep) back into their face. It happens too often in real life, too. Personally, I try not to do that because I don't enjoy (bleep) in my face. And if I'm not having a stroke or suffering in some fit of intellectual torpor, why distort the facts and then expect a mulligan ... ?


I gave u credit for your correction lol. What else do u want? Does it make the point of my argument any less true? U were correct and i was incorrect on an insignificant and irrelevant point. Lol hooray. I definitely don't liken some stuff on the Internet to feces on my face. I don't know how much being right on a forum means to you that you associate it to something as extreme as feces on your face, but I personally don't mind being wrong, as long as it helps me arrive at some sort of truth. I do wish you could provide something a bit more useful in that regard but if being wrong is as traumatic for u as feces on one's face, then your limitations in this discussion suddenly makes perfect sense and is completely understandable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Laker_Dynasty_01
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 1703

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:49 pm    Post subject:

To be fair, LeBron hasn't passed up on clutch shots since the 2011 Finals. He took command of Games 6 & 7 in the 2012 ECF. He led his team to a comeback before the Ray Allen shot. He basically broke the Bulls' backs in Game 4 of the 2015 conference semis. Last year he hit two threes and cut to the basket for the championship sealing play, scoring seven of the last ten points IIRC.

But before 2012 the criticism was more deserved, he played close to the vest with the game on the line, shooting only when he could overpower his man or get to the rim. Aside from the desperation shot against Orlando, I remember him passing rather than taking the jumper himself prior to his first ring.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:08 pm    Post subject:

Lakers_Jester wrote:
the association wrote:
Lakers_Jester wrote:


U r right. He did publicly ask to be traded throughout his career, but he didn't actually get traded at any point in time, nor did he ever leave in free agency. So very clearly my point still stands that kobe had to make due with what he was provided. Anything else? You couldn't see through the "transparency" of my post on that one to see the overall point? or did you really think such a petty correction actually made a relevant difference to the overall point of my argument? At least the claim on your part wasnt completely presumptive for once, so that's great progress for you!


It never ceases to amaze me when someone else throws (bleep) out into the wind, and then says "You know what I meant!" when the wind blows the (bleep) back into their face. It happens too often in real life, too. Personally, I try not to do that because I don't enjoy (bleep) in my face. And if I'm not having a stroke or suffering in some fit of intellectual torpor, why distort the facts and then expect a mulligan ... ?


I gave u credit for your correction lol. What else do u want? Does it make the point of my argument any less true? U were correct and i was incorrect on an insignificant and irrelevant point. Lol hooray. I definitely don't liken some stuff on the Internet to feces on my face. I don't know how much being right on a forum means to you that you associate it to something as extreme as feces on your face, but I personally don't mind being wrong, as long as it helps me arrive at some sort of truth. I do wish you could provide something a bit more useful in that regard but if being wrong is as traumatic for u as feces on one's face, then your limitations in this discussion suddenly makes perfect sense and is completely understandable.


Insignificant and irrelevant? You lied. You intentionally lied, and that lie was central to your argument. And when you were called on the lie, you attempted to move the goalpost and downplay the significance of the lie. Yeah, no ... you can try to pivot on the (bleep) metaphor all you want, but it doesn't recover whatever stature you believe you brought to the discussion in the first place. It's not the fact of being wrong that's so distasteful. It's the fact of purposefully propagating a lie in a really weak attempt to preserve the reality distortion field ... that's what's so distasteful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:33 pm    Post subject:

Laker_Dynasty_01 wrote:
To be fair, LeBron hasn't passed up on clutch shots since the 2011 Finals. He took command of Games 6 & 7 in the 2012 ECF. He led his team to a comeback before the Ray Allen shot. He basically broke the Bulls' backs in Game 4 of the 2015 conference semis. Last year he hit two threes and cut to the basket for the championship sealing play, scoring seven of the last ten points IIRC.

But before 2012 the criticism was more deserved, he played close to the vest with the game on the line, shooting only when he could overpower his man or get to the rim. Aside from the desperation shot against Orlando, I remember him passing rather than taking the jumper himself prior to his first ring.


What about Game 5 vs. Detroit in the 2007 Eastern Conference Finals? I think most people without an ax to grind when it comes to LeBron have his performance that night in the Top 10 postseason performances in NBA history. And a "super clutch" one, at that. There are many others, like Game 4 vs. Indiana in 2012, or the defensive suffocation of MVP Derrick Rose vs. the Bulls in 2011, or the countless pivotal, "clutch" plays he has made over the years in crucial moments having nothing to do with a "jumper" (e.g., "the block" in 2016). But that personal 2007 destruction of the perennial contender Pistons ... here, it's like it never even happened.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17835

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:57 pm    Post subject:

the association wrote:

What would have happened if Klay wasn't a chump in the waning moments? What if he had fought through the pick and stayed with Kyrie, or if he had simply hedged away from J.R. Smith to pressure the ball? You still think the right shot would have been a Kyrie isolation deep three against double coverage?

The Cavaliers don't have a "closer". Neither do the Warriors. Like every other successful team, they play the cards dealt to them (based on their personnel on the floor) and try to make the play most likely to result in a favorable outcome. Isolating two plays via selection bias that "kind of" support your thesis doesn't change that fact.


It's honestly amazing how you manage to delude yourself like this


LeBron ISO
Curry "ISO" (his version of an ISO = quick 3 off the high PnR)
Irving ISO
Curry ISO
Irving off the ISO penetration to a cutting LeBron (Klay being a chump as noted)

You can keep moving the goal posts and hitting straw men (I never said what the right move, I said that this is what teams do, and it's true), but facts are facts. Until Kyrie's pass, it was hero ball in the last two minutes.

Watch the final 2 minutes of a Raptors playoff game game --- Lowry & DeRozan hero ball. Cavs? Irving & LeBron. Warriors? Mostly just Curry. Thunder? Westbrook and Durant hero ball. Even the Spurs resorted to Kawhi ISOs at time.

Call it what you want, but the trend is obvious to anyone with two functioning eyes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:06 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
the association wrote:

What would have happened if Klay wasn't a chump in the waning moments? What if he had fought through the pick and stayed with Kyrie, or if he had simply hedged away from J.R. Smith to pressure the ball? You still think the right shot would have been a Kyrie isolation deep three against double coverage?

The Cavaliers don't have a "closer". Neither do the Warriors. Like every other successful team, they play the cards dealt to them (based on their personnel on the floor) and try to make the play most likely to result in a favorable outcome. Isolating two plays via selection bias that "kind of" support your thesis doesn't change that fact.


It's honestly amazing how you manage to delude yourself like this


LeBron ISO
Curry "ISO" (his version of an ISO = quick 3 off the high PnR)
Irving ISO
Curry ISO
Irving off the ISO penetration to a cutting LeBron (Klay being a chump as noted)

You can keep moving the goal posts and hitting straw men (I never said what the right move, I said that this is what teams do, and it's true), but facts are facts. Until Kyrie's pass, it was hero ball in the last two minutes.

Watch the final 2 minutes of a Raptors playoff game game --- Lowry & DeRozan hero ball. Cavs? Irving & LeBron. Warriors? Mostly just Curry. Thunder? Westbrook and Durant hero ball. Even the Spurs resorted to Kawhi ISOs at time.

Call it what you want, but the trend is obvious to anyone with two functioning eyes.


Maybe it's more about preserving possessions (i.e., limiting the risk of a crucial, backbreaking turnover in the waning moments of a game - when TOs are naturally more destructive - by keeping the ball in one player's hands) than it is about seeking to isolate the player with the ball ... ? I'll agree with you that this transition away from hero ball isn't complete, but it's certainly moving in that direction with enough certitude for me to comment ... also, wasn't there some ball movement in there on the Golden State end of the court that you're conveniently disregarding by limiting the discussion to the last five possessions? I suppose you can argue that it provides for a neat "clutch" window, but that's not the window others seem to accept for "clutch" opportunities these days ...

Also, the video quality of that link is rubbish ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17835

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:09 pm    Post subject:

the association wrote:
Maybe it's more about preserving possessions (i.e., limiting the risk of a crucial, backbreaking turnover in the waning moments of a game - when TOs are naturally more destructive - by keeping the ball in one player's hands) than it is about seeking to isolate the player with the ball ... ? I'll agree with you that this transition away from hero ball isn't complete, but it's certainly moving in that direction with enough certitude for me to comment ... also, wasn't there some ball movement in there on the Golden State end of the court that you're conveniently disregarding by limiting the discussion to the last five possessions? I suppose you can argue that it provides for a neat "clutch" window, but that's not the window others seem to accept for "clutch" opportunities these days ...

Also, the video quality of that link is rubbish ...

Then we mostly agree. I also think that coaches only do the whole hero ball routine because of fewer turnovers and also the (perhaps outdated) idea that a role player is more likely to choke than their star.

The other factor is that running a normal set might get your team a good shot, but if it is defended well, you end up with a bad shot. If you simply get it to your best player's sweet spot, you can be sure they'll get a decent look (all of the shots Curry, Irving, and LeBron took were shots they like). So perhaps coaches are just fine with the safe option of getting your star player a decent look, rather than hoping the play executes properly and the role player doesn't choke?

Regardless, my point wasn't really to speculate why coaches still resort to hero ball at the end or if it's a good thing, but simply to note it's still a thing.

Where I disagree with you is mostly on the future prognosis. I just don't see teams moving away (in the next 15 years) from giving their stars the opportunity to go to work when the game is on the line --- both due to superstar ego and coaches getting risk averse. But that's fine since none of us is a psychic, so we'll just have to see who's right.

As for the bolded --- it wasn't my intention to cherrypick examples. I just pulled up "Final 2 minutes of Game 7 Finals" on Youtube and clicked the second link.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JH from Hemet
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 25 Jun 2016
Posts: 518

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 6:58 pm    Post subject:

the association wrote:
Lakers_Jester wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Lakers_Jester wrote:
just making due with what his front office provided him with. The level of difficulty on that is much greater


Not necessarily. Let's take Bird and Magic who played with Hall of Fame teammates their entire careers. Their "level of difficulty" for "making due with what their front office provided" was zero. In fact, I think it would have been extraordinarily difficult for them to leave as free agents and improve their situation. So why should they get extra credit for staying put, when staying put was the easiest way for them to win?


I see your point that in some cases it actually helped the player to stand pat with their franchise (in retrospect), however, my point is similar to this comparison: winning the world series of poker with the hands you were dealt vs winning the world series of poke by going into the deck and picking cards u want from the deck. Sure u might get luckier and win with the hands you are dealt but the person who hand picks cards from a portion of the deck has it much easier wouldn't u say?


venturalakersfan wrote:
You can say that 10,000 times and it still wouldn't be accurate. Kobe succeeded with other stars, and didn't without other stars. Same with pretty much every other player in the NBA.


U r right that kobe had other stars but thats not my point. my point is kobe didn't leave and hand pick star free agents to team up with in free agency to make his goal dramatically more attainable. It's like if lebron had stayed in Cleveland his entire career and won 5 out of 7 chips, wouldn't you value those more than the 3 out of 7 he's currently won hopping between superteams? Even after that significant advantage, he's still basically 3 out of 7 in the finals. Compare that to teams like the spurs, mavs, lakers, pistons, and warriors who did it the old fashioned way. Kobe could have left lakers or demanded a trade during the post shaq and pre pau days (heck even after the 2011 loss) and won perhaps another chip or two the way shaq tried to do when he became a ring chaser, but kobe didnt and still won 5 out of 7. Duncan has 5 with the same team that was practically entirely developed from the ground up. Is that not more comendable? Is that not more difficult to do? To rely on your front office to provide you with pieces you must make fit together rather than going out and selecting some of the best pieces available that fit your liking. Kobe had to hope his franchise made it easier on him, lebron made it easier on himself.


Wrong ... he very publicly demanded a trade. Both after Shaq left and earlier in his career, as well. Get your facts straight, since you've done this thousands of times.


You are twisting the crap out of that (which is not suprising) Kobe said "do something to fix it"

He never actually left....unlike Lebron who left to help form the super friends

Bottom line.....Kobe has never left the team that traded to get him in the draft......period
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:10 pm    Post subject:

No, especially when Dr. Buss called his bluff.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:24 pm    Post subject:

I've never regretted looking through a thread as much as this moment
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:45 pm    Post subject:

JH from Hemet wrote:
the association wrote:
Lakers_Jester wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Lakers_Jester wrote:
just making due with what his front office provided him with. The level of difficulty on that is much greater


Not necessarily. Let's take Bird and Magic who played with Hall of Fame teammates their entire careers. Their "level of difficulty" for "making due with what their front office provided" was zero. In fact, I think it would have been extraordinarily difficult for them to leave as free agents and improve their situation. So why should they get extra credit for staying put, when staying put was the easiest way for them to win?


I see your point that in some cases it actually helped the player to stand pat with their franchise (in retrospect), however, my point is similar to this comparison: winning the world series of poker with the hands you were dealt vs winning the world series of poke by going into the deck and picking cards u want from the deck. Sure u might get luckier and win with the hands you are dealt but the person who hand picks cards from a portion of the deck has it much easier wouldn't u say?


venturalakersfan wrote:
You can say that 10,000 times and it still wouldn't be accurate. Kobe succeeded with other stars, and didn't without other stars. Same with pretty much every other player in the NBA.


U r right that kobe had other stars but thats not my point. my point is kobe didn't leave and hand pick star free agents to team up with in free agency to make his goal dramatically more attainable. It's like if lebron had stayed in Cleveland his entire career and won 5 out of 7 chips, wouldn't you value those more than the 3 out of 7 he's currently won hopping between superteams? Even after that significant advantage, he's still basically 3 out of 7 in the finals. Compare that to teams like the spurs, mavs, lakers, pistons, and warriors who did it the old fashioned way. Kobe could have left lakers or demanded a trade during the post shaq and pre pau days (heck even after the 2011 loss) and won perhaps another chip or two the way shaq tried to do when he became a ring chaser, but kobe didnt and still won 5 out of 7. Duncan has 5 with the same team that was practically entirely developed from the ground up. Is that not more comendable? Is that not more difficult to do? To rely on your front office to provide you with pieces you must make fit together rather than going out and selecting some of the best pieces available that fit your liking. Kobe had to hope his franchise made it easier on him, lebron made it easier on himself.


Wrong ... he very publicly demanded a trade. Both after Shaq left and earlier in his career, as well. Get your facts straight, since you've done this thousands of times.


You are twisting the crap out of that (which is not suprising) Kobe said "do something to fix it"

He never actually left....unlike Lebron who left to help form the super friends

Bottom line.....Kobe has never left the team that traded to get him in the draft......period


Kobe's trade demands before he was drafted; when he was second fiddle to Shaq early in his career; and then again when he fell flat on his face for multiple seasons after he convinced the Lakers franchise to place its bet on him are exactly what they are ...

I'm not his therapist, but the motivations seem pretty obvious to me. The first trade demand involved a pretty savvy teenager and his inner circle manipulating a situation to maximize the potential he might land in a favorable situation. In his shoes, I'm sure I would have tried to do the same thing. And the other instances seem like the lashing-out that happens when an egomaniac fights the fact that his perception of his own abilities isn't really squaring with reality. Again, I probably would have done the same exact thing if I had been lucky enough to be as talented as Kobe, but was simultaneously forced to confront the reality that I just couldn't get the job done.

Meanwhile, I actually don't hold any of that against Kobe. Where I weigh-in on this issue, however, is the point when the KDL tries to disparage LeBron because he had to make his own opportunity. And the contrast that's always drawn is Kobe's charmed path. In my book, it wasn't served up for LeBron on a silver platter, so he went out and made it happen himself. It's ironic, you must admit, that so many Kobe fans tout the bootstrappy hard work legend of Kobe (often emphasizing that he had to overcome some perceived physical gift deficit in comparison to LeBron or MJ), but those same individuals just cannot give credit to LeBron for his own bootstrappy initiative in working around the limitations of what Dan Gilbert was willing to provide for him in the way of a legitimate #2 (Zydrunas Illgauskus or Mo Williams ... are you (bleep) kidding me?) ...

And lastly: we didn't trade to get Kobe in the draft. He was drafted by Charlotte, and then traded to us. Small detail, but relevant nonetheless ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:54 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
the association wrote:
Maybe it's more about preserving possessions (i.e., limiting the risk of a crucial, backbreaking turnover in the waning moments of a game - when TOs are naturally more destructive - by keeping the ball in one player's hands) than it is about seeking to isolate the player with the ball ... ? I'll agree with you that this transition away from hero ball isn't complete, but it's certainly moving in that direction with enough certitude for me to comment ... also, wasn't there some ball movement in there on the Golden State end of the court that you're conveniently disregarding by limiting the discussion to the last five possessions? I suppose you can argue that it provides for a neat "clutch" window, but that's not the window others seem to accept for "clutch" opportunities these days ...

Also, the video quality of that link is rubbish ...

Then we mostly agree. I also think that coaches only do the whole hero ball routine because of fewer turnovers and also the (perhaps outdated) idea that a role player is more likely to choke than their star.

The other factor is that running a normal set might get your team a good shot, but if it is defended well, you end up with a bad shot. If you simply get it to your best player's sweet spot, you can be sure they'll get a decent look (all of the shots Curry, Irving, and LeBron took were shots they like). So perhaps coaches are just fine with the safe option of getting your star player a decent look, rather than hoping the play executes properly and the role player doesn't choke?

Regardless, my point wasn't really to speculate why coaches still resort to hero ball at the end or if it's a good thing, but simply to note it's still a thing.

Where I disagree with you is mostly on the future prognosis. I just don't see teams moving away (in the next 15 years) from giving their stars the opportunity to go to work when the game is on the line --- both due to superstar ego and coaches getting risk averse. But that's fine since none of us is a psychic, so we'll just have to see who's right.

As for the bolded --- it wasn't my intention to cherrypick examples. I just pulled up "Final 2 minutes of Game 7 Finals" on Youtube and clicked the second link.


Yeah, I'm generally in the neighborhood re: your views on this issue. I look at it this way: In late game situations, when a turnover can devastate prospects for a win, I think the default strategy has involved keeping the ball in one player's hands as much as possible, and that one player has usually been the team's primary ball handler. For us, that person was Kobe for the past 20 years (the usage rate makes that clear, right?). For Cleveland, it's been LeBron or Kyrie of late.

But again, the big picture is this (at least for me): The expanding versatility of wings in general, and the evolution of the game to include seven footers who can handle the ball like point guards, is flipping the script ... I think we're well on our way to a time when isolation basketball provides a certain pathway to the lottery.

And back on topic: the versatility in Russell's game, Ingram's game and Clarkson's game is going to dictate who takes the final shot for us, and it will be dependent on many factors. I just don't see the "relief pitcher" model in basketball making much sense any longer. And I don't think it really ever did ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
67ShelbyGT
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 4048

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:15 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
MJST wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Deathstroke wrote:
67ShelbyGT wrote:
Yet, the 2 times that his team needed the most clutch shots of his life, it was Ray Allen and Kyrie that saved him from being an 1-ring pony.

Stats are good only with context or else they can easily be manipulated to support any argument. ESPN is the king of this tactic.


This is the dagger right here.


Just as Fisher and Horry saved Kobe from losing out on a couple of rings. Surprise, it takes a team to win a title. That is why using titles in individual comparisons is so dumb.


Do you honestly think that if we'd lost game 4 against the Magic that they would have beaten us? Seriously?


I honestly think we lose to the Kings if not for Horry's clutch shot. And to the Spurs if not for Fish outdoing TD's clutch shot.


Horry shot... last I checked was not g7 literally last shot of the game so it's pure speculation what woulda coulda happened. Now, Kyrie doesn't bail LBJ out in that shot, it's a fact that LBJ is at 2 rings. Ray doesn't grab that rebound and hit that 3, it's again a guarantee that LBJ is at 1 ring. Both shots were literally last lifeline. No speculation or stat manipulation can save LBJ machine as they were elimination game.

(Oh and we didn't win a ring the yr Fish hit that .4 shot... sorry to ruin you BS spin party... even after his retirement the Kobe haters running strong. Love it)
_________________
Alltime lineup: Magic | Kobe | MJ | Hakeem | KAJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:24 pm    Post subject:

67ShelbyGT wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
MJST wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Deathstroke wrote:
67ShelbyGT wrote:
Yet, the 2 times that his team needed the most clutch shots of his life, it was Ray Allen and Kyrie that saved him from being an 1-ring pony.

Stats are good only with context or else they can easily be manipulated to support any argument. ESPN is the king of this tactic.


This is the dagger right here.


Just as Fisher and Horry saved Kobe from losing out on a couple of rings. Surprise, it takes a team to win a title. That is why using titles in individual comparisons is so dumb.


Do you honestly think that if we'd lost game 4 against the Magic that they would have beaten us? Seriously?


I honestly think we lose to the Kings if not for Horry's clutch shot. And to the Spurs if not for Fish outdoing TD's clutch shot.


Horry shot... last I checked was not g7 literally last shot of the game so it's pure speculation what woulda coulda happened. Now, Kyrie doesn't bail LBJ out in that shot, it's a fact that LBJ is at 2 rings. Ray doesn't grab that rebound and hit that 3, it's again a guarantee that LBJ is at 1 ring.

(We didn't win a ring the yr Fish hit that .4 shot... sorry to ruin you BS spin party... even after his retirement the Kobe haters running strong. Love it)


The score was tied at 89 prior to Kyrie's basket with a minute or so left in the game. LeBron had scored the previous 8 points for the Cavaliers, including the six straight points that brought them from four down to two up before Klay's basket tied the game at 89. Of course, LeBron plays both ends of the court, so he also foreclosed on Golden State's best chance for points in the final few minutes with "the block". In case you missed it, here it is:



From those facts, you've concluded that without Kyrie's shot, the Cavaliers would definitively have lost the game and the series? Please explain ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17835

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:58 pm    Post subject:

the association wrote:

Yeah, I'm generally in the neighborhood re: your views on this issue. I look at it this way: In late game situations, when a turnover can devastate prospects for a win, I think the default strategy has involved keeping the ball in one player's hands as much as possible, and that one player has usually been the team's primary ball handler. For us, that person was Kobe for the past 20 years (the usage rate makes that clear, right?). For Cleveland, it's been LeBron or Kyrie of late.

But again, the big picture is this (at least for me): The expanding versatility of wings in general, and the evolution of the game to include seven footers who can handle the ball like point guards, is flipping the script ... I think we're well on our way to a time when isolation basketball provides a certain pathway to the lottery.

And back on topic: the versatility in Russell's game, Ingram's game and Clarkson's game is going to dictate who takes the final shot for us, and it will be dependent on many factors. I just don't see the "relief pitcher" model in basketball making much sense any longer. And I don't think it really ever did ...




FWIW, there is a pretty clear distinction between Kobe and that clip of the Warriors vs. Cavs... unlike most of Kobe's late game heroics (and forgotten un-heroics), Kyrie, LeBron, and Steph all did their damage (or lack of damage) basically against single coverage. The one time a player faced help defense, he passed it (Kyrie to the cutting LeBron). I'm not sure they're going to cut out the "relief pitcher" model completely, but I imagine the days of a guy shooting against double or triple coverage are over.

And yeah, I imagine the Lakers will go to something more egalitarian in clutch situations. But who's the primary option on the play you draw up with 20 seconds left on the clock? I see it being Russell, but Clarkson and (down the line) Ingram would be good options as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6
Jump to:  

 
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






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB