NBA Playoffs | Page 44 | The Boneyard

NBA Playoffs

Cleveland, Boston, Golden State, and Houston combined to hoist 157 threes in their respective game sevens. That's 49% of their total attempts.

In game seven of the 2010 NBA Finals, the Celtics and Lakers combined to take 36 threes, or 23% of their total attempts.

I'm sure the splits aren't quite that pronounced league-wide, but boy, you don't have to go back to the George Mikan era to observe the radical change our sport has endured. The triangle with Fisher/Kobe/Odom/Gasol/Bynum may as well be from the 1600's.
 
Remember when 30 three point attempts in a game was a lot? Now, two top teams miss that many in one game. How do you sit there and watch your team continue shooting 3s after missing 15 in a row....let alone 25 in a row. People who consider D'Antoni a good coach are nuts.
 
That was laugh out loud terrible.
Curry - well done - dude showed up.
Thompson - clutch - kept them in it when it mattered.

Everything else about the game was pathetic.

Which is the most pathetic?
1. Harding is going to win MVP over LeBron (awful!).
2. Rockets just pulled a choke so bad it makes the 16 Warriors look like swallowers.
3. Durant plays so-so when it matters, then great after Curry shows up.
4. Refs looked bought and paid for - terrible. LOL.
5. Harden couldn't get his patented BS foul me on a 3 call. I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, what a BS play to jump into guys and throw up crap 3s when a guy touches your arm - on the other hand, Rockets got jobbed!
6. The NBA game has degenerated into a 3 point bombing contest - unpleasant, at best, to watch, at times.
7. How did it take almost 40 years for the NBA to figure out that bombing 3s is much better, mathematically, then working for 2s? It's simple math. 33% from 3=50% from 2. DUH.
 
I think the whole "try something else when the three isn't falling" philosophy sounds good, but to my knowledge it's been disproven by research. I just think it's tricky to pinpoint the exact moment at which you're "not feeling it" from deep, especially when those attempts are scattered across a half-dozen players. Is James Harden supposed to stop shooting threes because he's missed four in a row? When he's a 37% shooter on the year? Is that how great shooters think? Is that how you break out of a slump? I think it depends who you ask.

It's not always fun to watch, I'll say that. And it has to take a toll on a player to miss that many shots in a row. Human nature tells you to hunt an easier shot, and basic psychology can only be separated from math for so long. Players want to see the ball go in the basket and so do fans. When you're hunting a three and everybody else in the building knows you're hunting a three, they become extremely difficult shots. I don't care to sift through every attempt and qualify them by difficulty, but if you're trying to differentiate between variance and skill, that's probably what you have to do. The quality of Golden State's attempts were obviously far better than Houston's. Is that the difference between 41% and 16%? Probably not. Are their methods validated if they shoot 25% from three instead of 16%? I don't know. There are so many competing variables at every given point in time that it's damn near impossible to isolate the hypothesis you're trying to prove.

Usually when the wrong team wins it means the better team lost. After seven games of that, I've come to the conclusion that the wrong team won despite being noticeably better. CP3 or not, the Warriors outscored the Rockets by 63 points in that series. Four of those games were played without Andre Iguodala and as many were played on Houston's home floor. They conceivably could have won four of the five games Paul did play, and their bizarrely bipolar approach gave you the sense they were just toying with Houston all along. It's no surprise that they open as significant favorites against Cleveland; more so, certainly, than Houston would have been.

But it felt like Houston deserved it more. They had less depth, even when the Warriors were without Iguodala and Paul was healthy, and when it came time to close the series with a strong second half, it felt like Houston's players had given all they could. It was like watching a prideful, well-coached FCS program hang with Bama for three quarters before their quarterback got hurt and their defense wore down. Nothing about the final result was satisfying.
 
.-.
7. How did it take almost 40 years for the NBA to figure out that bombing 3s is much better, mathematically, then working for 2s? It's simple math. 33% from 3=50% from 2. DUH.[/QUOTE]

3 big reasons:
1) Shooters weren't as good overall
2) The zone was illegal so everyone played man-to-man
3) You could hand check you man so it was harder to get the space players get today (This is the main difference)
 
tzznandrew said:
I mean, at some point shouldn't the strategy be to do something different?
Expand ...

It's Mike D'Antoni; the word "adjustment" is not in his vocabulary.

What a disappointing postseason. The two prohibitive favorites were vulnerable and playing poorly and it didn't matter. We still get Cavs/Warriors IV in the end, once again proving the NBA regular season is the biggest farce in pro sports.
 
I think the NBA is getting really bad with the refs. That game had way to many no calls on Hardens jumper. Even though the Rockets missed a boatload of 3's, they still shouldve been in the game.
 
champs99and04 said:
I think the whole "try something else when the three isn't falling" philosophy sounds good, but to my knowledge it's been disproven by research. I just think it's tricky to pinpoint the exact moment at which you're "not feeling it" from deep, especially when those attempts are scattered across a half-dozen players. Is James Harden supposed to stop shooting threes because he's missed four in a row? When he's a 37% shooter on the year? Is that how great shooters think? Is that how you break out of a slump? I think it depends who you ask.
Expand ...

It's a case where you can't be married to analytics. I've always felt that analytics are a tool in your toolbox, it can't be your lone source for strategy. You have to have your finger on the pulse of a game, as a player or coach. I imagine there isn't a huge sample set for Game Sevens three rounds deep in the playoffs where your players are nervous and uptight. Research over the course of regular seasons may show that you should stick with the three but it's a different animal this late in the postseason. It's why "jump-shooting teams can't win" was the adage in the NBA for decades. The spotlight is huge, your players are on edge; it's not a coincidence we saw Ariza lay a massive egg a night after Rozier did and both home teams being ice cold from outside. Game 7's in the NBA are often ugly and lower scoring due to the intensity and the stakes.

Shooters shoot, sure, but if you're a player like Harden (much more than a shooter) then you want to try to get an easy bucket or get to the FT line to see the ball go through the hoop and get a confidence boost. Harden got screwed on some no-calls last night but I hate that element of his game so much that I don't care that he got screwed. Just play the game and stop trying to draw fouls every damn possession. I'm a believer that it messes with your mental approach to the game. The other thing is that while Houston and Boston had a lot of open looks (it's bound to happen when you shoot that many threes) there were also a lot of bad possessions and terrible shots.
 
MilliniumPrince said:
People who consider D'Antoni a good coach are nuts.
Expand ...
I don’t think a “bad” coach goes through the West and takes GS to the brink like Houston did.

Not sure if the comparison has been made by others here yet but I see parallels between D’Antoni and Chip Kelly. Not bad coaches, but they have their innovative offenses and stick to them no matter what, to a fault. Team success is determined by how well the team can find pieces hat that fit in to and work within the system. It’s tough to make it all the way when you’re as rigid as they apparently are
 
.-.
champs99and04 said:
I think the whole "try something else when the three isn't falling" philosophy sounds good, but to my knowledge it's been disproven by research. I just think it's tricky to pinpoint the exact moment at which you're "not feeling it" from deep, especially when those attempts are scattered across a half-dozen players. Is James Harden supposed to stop shooting threes because he's missed four in a row? When he's a 37% shooter on the year? Is that how great shooters think? Is that how you break out of a slump? I think it depends who you ask.

It's not always fun to watch, I'll say that. And it has to take a toll on a player to miss that many shots in a row. Human nature tells you to hunt an easier shot, and basic psychology can only be separated from math for so long. Players want to see the ball go in the basket and so do fans. When you're hunting a three and everybody else in the building knows you're hunting a three, they become extremely difficult shots. I don't care to sift through every attempt and qualify them by difficulty, but if you're trying to differentiate between variance and skill, that's probably what you have to do. The quality of Golden State's attempts were obviously far better than Houston's. Is that the difference between 41% and 16%? Probably not. Are their methods validated if they shoot 25% from three instead of 16%? I don't know. There are so many competing variables at every given point in time that it's damn near impossible to isolate the hypothesis you're trying to prove.

Usually when the wrong team wins it means the better team lost. After seven games of that, I've come to the conclusion that the wrong team won despite being noticeably better. CP3 or not, the Warriors outscored the Rockets by 63 points in that series. Four of those games were played without Andre Iguodala and as many were played on Houston's home floor. They conceivably could have won four of the five games Paul did play, and their bizarrely bipolar approach gave you the sense they were just toying with Houston all along. It's no surprise that they open as significant favorites against Cleveland; more so, certainly, than Houston would have been.

But it felt like Houston deserved it more. They had less depth, even when the Warriors were without Iguodala and Paul was healthy, and when it came time to close the series with a strong second half, it felt like Houston's players had given all they could. It was like watching a prideful, well-coached FCS program hang with Bama for three quarters before their quarterback got hurt and their defense wore down. Nothing about the final result was satisfying.
Expand ...
When James Harden was 0-15 or so for three it was time to start trying to diversify a bit instead of doing the same step back brick all the time. When the team was 0-15 it was probably time to diversify a bit, 0-18 maybe, 0-20 possibly, 0-23 hmmm, 0-25 makes you think....
 
Onto the finals. Does Cleveland win a game? Also, I know a certain New Yawk radio host that holds lost super bowls against quarterbacks (Brady vs Montana), but gives LeBron and his hand picked teams a pass. When LeBron loses again, how much does the 3-6 finals record effect his overall body of work? Also, let's not forget before the Boston series started Cleveland was the favorite to win it.
 
MadDogRevival said:
I have to disagree here. There was plenty of space - what was lacking was the strategy.
Expand ...

Not like today's game. It took great passing and hard picks (no one called moving picks/screens in the 80s or early 90s) to get a guy a wide open look. Take a look at the games this past weekend. The shooting was criminally horrible, but a lot of those looks were wide open. Now, athletes are much better today and I think the game is just as competitive now as it was then, but in different ways.

Free Agency is also much different. GSW managed to get the three best shooters in the world on one team. They got two by drafting and KD as a free agent. The odds of that happening in any era have to be damn long. The strategy was lacking because this type of personnel didn't exist. There simply weren't as many long range shooters back then. Three point shooting was more of a specialty until Bird came along. But he couldn't create the wide open looks players get today. I don't believe he ever hit more than 100 3s in a season. Curry, Klay, and Durant hit 100 by New Year's. In fact, I think I read Curry hit 100 in 20 games. Bird was the best shooter of my youth and he was just under 38% from Three. Count the guys in the League now who shoot better than that. Lebron is not considered a strong shooter and he shoots 34% from the arc for his career.
 
mjmoney23 said:
Onto the finals. Does Cleveland win a game? Also, I know a certain New Yawk radio host that holds lost super bowls against quarterbacks (Brady vs Montana), but gives LeBron and his hand picked teams a pass. When LeBron loses again, how much does the 3-6 finals record effect his overall body of work? Also, let's not forget before the Boston series started Cleveland was the favorite to win it.
Expand ...

Brady and Montana were usually favorites to win the Superbowls in which they played. In Montana's case, he was an overwhelming favorite in all but one I believe. LeBron's teams have been favored maybe four times in nine trips.
 
2011 and 2014 I would say Miami was the favorite, especially 2011. That was as bad a choke job as there has been.
 
Rocktheworld said:
I don’t think a “bad” coach goes through the West and takes GS to the brink like Houston did.

Not sure if the comparison has been made by others here yet but I see parallels between D’Antoni and Chip Kelly. Not bad coaches, but they have their innovative offenses and stick to them no matter what, to a fault. Team success is determined by how well the team can find pieces hat that fit in to and work within the system. It’s tough to make it all the way when you’re as rigid as they apparently are
Expand ...


I didn't say he was a bad coach. He isn't. He also isn't a good coach. He is a system implementor. He runs a system, and if you give him the perfect players for that system, he racks up regular season wins. This will be the third time he has coached the MVP, and not once has he made the Finals. That is almost unheard us in the League. Hell, I think it is unheard of.
 
.-.
mjmoney23 said:
2011 and 2014 I would say Miami was the favorite, especially 2011. That was as bad a choke job as there has been.
Expand ...
Agreed. And like I said, he has been favored three, maybe four, times out of nine. Brady and Montana are not good comparisons.
 
UConn990411 said:
If I’m remembering correctly, they were not favorites in 2014. That Spurs team was one of the most underrated great teams of all time.
Expand ...
They were favored the first time against the Spurs (Heat Won). They were not favored the second time (Heat Lost). I believe Lebron was the favorite against Dallas, OKC, and the second time against the Spurs (first time with the Heat). I believe his team was the underdog every other time. He he has one loss as the favorite, and one win as the dog. If memory serves me.
 
Last edited:
superjohn said:
When James Harden was 0-15 or so for three it was time to start trying to diversify a bit instead of doing the same step back brick all the time. When the team was 0-15 it was probably time to diversify a bit, 0-18 maybe, 0-20 possibly, 0-23 hmmm, 0-25 makes you think....
Expand ...

Wasn't that Harden stretch from games 4 and 5? And they won both, one of which was the only loss the Warriors have had at home in the playoffs with Kevin Durant (won the other 17)?
 
auror said:
Wasn't that Harden stretch from games 4 and 5? And they won both, one of which was the only loss the Warriors have had at home in the playoffs with Kevin Durant (won the other 17)?
Expand ...
Yes.
 
superjohn said:
Yes.
Expand ...

I guess I'm confused. Are you suggesting they DID diversify in those games? But then didn't in game 7? In game 5, when he got to the 18th straight miss and presumably when they would have the strongest impetus to change, they attempted just as many 3s as they did in game 7.

Or that they didn't and still did something that even the super Cavs team didn't?
 
.-.
auror said:
I guess I'm confused. Are you suggesting they DID diversify in those games? But then didn't in game 7? In game 5, when he got to the 18th straight miss and presumably when they would have the strongest impetus to change, they attempted just as many 3s as they did in game 7.

Or that they didn't and still did something that even the super Cavs team didn't?
Expand ...
I'm suggesting they should stop shooting so many threes when they can't make them.
 
MilliniumPrince said:
They were favored the first time against the Spurs (Heat Won). They were not favored the second time (Heat Lost). I believe Lebron was the favorite against Dallas, OKC, and the second time against the Spurs (first time with the Heat). I believe his team was the underdog every other time. He he has one loss as the favorite, and one win as the dog. If memory serves me.
Expand ...
Unfortunately the Finals is such a mismatch that we are left with this stupid debate over LeBron's finals record that somehow matters more to us today than a baseball pitcher's won-loss record (which we all acknowledge isn't a reliable statistic). LeBron isn't even a pitcher and the finals record doesn't mean Reddick.

Yes LeBron mowed thru yet another crappy eastern conference slate of competitors, but the way he persevered over Indiana, dominated Toronto and was the MAN the last two games to knock off Boston was simply awesome. I'm going to watch him play more amazingly good basketball and likely fail trying to topple a team that's #2-6 players make his look like DII scrubs. I'm not going to be doing GOAT calculus equations that analyze how the team's outcome impact LeBron's legacy debate.
 
Dogdeacon said:
Unfortunately the Finals is such a mismatch that we are left with this stupid debate over LeBron's finals record that somehow matters more to us today than a baseball pitcher's won-loss record (which we all acknowledge isn't a reliable statistic). LeBron isn't even a pitcher and the finals record doesn't mean Reddick.

Yes LeBron mowed thru yet another crappy eastern conference slate of competitors, but the way he persevered over Indiana, dominated Toronto and was the MAN the last two games to knock off Boston was simply awesome. I'm going to watch him play more amazingly good basketball and likely fail trying to topple a team that's #2-6 players make his look like DII scrubs. I'm not going to be doing GOAT calculus equations that analyze how the team's outcome impact LeBron's legacy debate.
Expand ...
I think it will be a more competitive series than most people think. Obviously Steph, Klay and Durant are amazing and Green is a great jack of all trades player but this Warriors team doesn't have the quality depth of past Warriors teams. Lebron will be the best player on the floor and the reat of his team isn't nearly as scrubby as everyone is making them out to be.
 
A big fat YAWN. Warriors/Cavs for like the 5th time in a row..Soooo predictable, how boring. Prefer to see some new blood.

So, is it the Cavs turn this year? Basically they alternate with the warrios every year. Hard to see how this is not rigged at this point. Too bad, celts/houston could have been cool and at least something new for a change.
 
Travelman32 said:
A big fat YAWN. Warriors/Cavs for like the 5th time in a row..Soooo predictable, how boring. Prefer to see some new blood.

So, is it the Cavs turn this year? Basically they alternate with the warrios every year. Hard to see how this is not rigged at this point. Too bad, celts/houston could have been cool and at least something new for a change.
Expand ...

To me, personally, it's more about the way it happens than what happens. The journey not the result.

I was entertained that both series went to game 7s and that the "predictable" teams had to win tough games on the road to close it out. If the favorites weren't challenged, I'd agree, and I do wish more of the games were closer throughout in the earlier parts of the series.

But the Celtics were favored in game 7 and they forced LeBron to literally go all out. In a sense, greatness is only apparent when it's needed. The old Bill Simmons-told story of Milton Berle just pulling enough out to win: you only get the full experience in times of desperation and great challenge.
 
champs99and04 said:
I think the whole "try something else when the three isn't falling" philosophy sounds good, but to my knowledge it's been disproven by research. I just think it's tricky to pinpoint the exact moment at which you're "not feeling it" from deep, especially when those attempts are scattered across a half-dozen players. Is James Harden supposed to stop shooting threes because he's missed four in a row? When he's a 37% shooter on the year?
Expand ...

MadDogRevival said:
7. How did it take almost 40 years for the NBA to figure out that bombing 3s is much better, mathematically, then working for 2s? It's simple math. 33% from 3=50% from 2. DUH.
Expand ...

Harden was 9 of 47 on threes since game 4. 19%

He would have been far better served going to the rim for layups and and-1's.

It's often a mental thing anyway. Once you start getting buckets, magically, you find your stroke. You stop pressing.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,306
Messages
4,562,342
Members
10,457
Latest member
caw2


Top Bottom