NBA Playoffs | Page 46 | The Boneyard

NBA Playoffs

You can look at his stats in the NBA Finals as an example, for instance. And this is coming from someone who really likes Steph as a player.

I know his numbers in the finals aren't great, but I've never viewed that as a mental thing. The game gets more physical, Golden State's actions are better scouted, and obviously he's playing better competition. He's had a couple of inexcusably bad performances in the finals, but I don't see him as a guy that shrinks from the moment.
 
For me, it's just not a quality that comes to mind when discussing Steph.

Now Larry, that's one of his strongest qualities. And that's not because he played way back when. In the history of the NBA, he's up there with the best (MJ et al) in that department.

Can't disagree with that, though I do wonder how how Curry's perception on that front might be influenced by his mannerisms on the court. The weird grin, the mouth guard thing, the relaxed demeanor...sometimes I think that can confuse people into thinking he's not also competitive as hell. With a guy like Westbrook you have the opposite impression (which isn't to say people see him as the gold standard either).
 
I feel ashamed for clicking on anything on You Tube with word "ultimate" in the title.

This video proves beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone that Celtics had the biggest dork fan base of all time. Probably one of the major reasons I despised them.

Favorite part of the mixtape was the story while on an off day of a west coast trip he told reporters and players the next game in Portland he was going to score all his points left-handed. Then, goes out and does it. 27 points with his off hand.


 
I feel ashamed for clicking on anything on You Tube with word "ultimate" in the title.

This video proves beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone that Celtics had the biggest dork fan base of all time. Probably one of the major reasons I despised them.

Favorite part of the mixtape was the story while on an off day of a west coast trip he told reporters and players the next game in Portland he was going to score all his points left-handed. Then, goes out and does it. 27 points with his off hand.




I noticed a few of the highlights were from the Hartford Civic Center when they had to play a few games there a year haha.
 
I noticed a few of the highlights were from the Hartford Civic Center when they had to play a few games there a year haha.

And the game against the Hawks when he went for 60 was in New Orleans.
 
I noticed a few of the highlights were from the Hartford Civic Center when they had to play a few games there a year haha.

They didn't "have to". They did it by design as it extended the NBA's definition of their home market to include most of Connecticut. It was about how TV worked under the old contracts. They were able to keep the Knicks out by playing, I think it was 6 games a year in Hartford.
 
.-.
Some people in this thread don't seem to realize how amazing a player Bird was and how awesome he would be today. He's hands down one of the 4 best players I've ever seen but he's simply not a better three point shooter than Curry, you're letting your dislike of Curry cloud your judgement.

Technically, Curry isn't as good a 3 point shooter as his coach was.

Bird was certainly a better overall player than Curry is. It's not even close. He is indeed underrated. I don't know if he'd have been the best 3 point shooter ever, but he certainly was harder to guard on the perimeter than Curry is.

Ray has as nice a jump shot as anybody.
 
. . . but he's simply not a better three point shooter than Curry, you're letting your dislike of Curry cloud your judgement.
It's just speculative. We agree that Bird, during his career, was not as good a 3 point shooter as Curry.
Where we seem to disagree is how Bird would do if he was raised on the 3.
3 Pointer came to the NBA in 1980. Bird was 24 years old.
In his best 3 years, shooting just 2 or 3 shots a game, Bird's average from the 3 was just under Steph's career average.
The first time Curry shot a 3 was the first time he could shoot a 3 - probably age 8 or something.
The first time Bird shot a 3 was when he was 24 years old.
If Curry was shooting 3s at age 12, and he shot, say 100 a day, very conservatively, that means he shot a quarter of a million threes by the age of 18. If he started younger and he shot 200 a day, then it's quite possible that Steph Curry shot a million 3s in his life before setting foot on an NBA court.
Sure, Bird probably shot a million shots as well, but not repetitively from the exact same distance on the floor.
Bird growing up with 3s would be a top 4 player in the league, right now, in his prime.
 
They didn't "have to". They did it by design as it extended the NBA's definition of their home market to include most of Connecticut. It was about how TV worked under the old contracts. They were able to keep the Knicks out by playing, I think it was 6 games a year in Hartford.

Yes I’m aware.
 
Technically, Curry isn't as good a 3 point shooter as his coach was.

Bird was certainly a better overall player than Curry is. It's not even close. He is indeed underrated. I don't know if he'd have been the best 3 point shooter ever, but he certainly was harder to guard on the perimeter than Curry is.

Ray has as nice a jump shot as anybody.
Curry is the best 3 point shooter ever.
 
They didn't "have to". They did it by design as it extended the NBA's definition of their home market to include most of Connecticut. It was about how TV worked under the old contracts. They were able to keep the Knicks out by playing, I think it was 6 games a year in Hartford.
It was usually 3. And I heard Red say he did it because the HCC was much more profitable than the Garden, more "premium seats."
 
.-.
I somehow had no idea who Drazen Petrovic was until googling the all-time leaders in 3P%. Wow.
 
.-.
Gotta watch the 30 for 30 Once Brothers about him and Divac.

Apparently it came out in 2010 - must have been one of the earliest 30 for 30's. Can't believe I missed it at the time. For some reason I never saw it on the list of featured docs, but I see now that it's on youtube. Appreciate the heads-up.
 
Apparently it came out in 2010 - must have been one of the earliest 30 for 30's. Can't believe I missed it at the time. For some reason I never saw it on the list of featured docs, but I see now that it's on youtube. Appreciate the heads-up.
The history of the break up of Yugoslavia, and it's effect on the two players, is so devastating and engaging. It's absolutely one of their best.
 
.-.
I'm with this.
The two mitigating factors in ascending order:
2. Warriors were disinterested all year, I think they'll be motivated to make a statement and annihilate the weaker Cavs. But they could get bored with that after 1 or 2 games or even been undone by going in knowledge that they are vastly superior & able to coast and still win - if somehow their 3rd quarter onslaught shoots blanks they could lose any game.
1. NBA conspiracy theory. League lost a ton of money on shortened playoffs last year. Voila - 2 x 7 game conference finals. Not sure what the money is for every additional finals game, but if it significantly moves the league-wide revenue share look for extreme home cooking officiating in Cleveland and 2+-to-1 foul discrepancy.
 
I think what will likely be exposed as true is that IF the Celtics can almost win the East while missing 2 stars the east stinks. Warriors in 4
The East is terrible but this Warriors team isn't a vintage team. They are without Iggy and lacking any rim protection and quality depth they used to have. You just can't be that jekyll and hyde and loosey goosey if you expect to sweep against anyone in the finals.
 
The East is terrible but this Warriors team isn't a vintage team. They are without Iggy and lacking any rim protection and quality depth they used to have. You just can't be that jekyll and hyde and loosey goosey if you expect to sweep against anyone in the finals.
I don't think they'll sweep. But they weren't really Jekyll/Hyde. Look at what they did to NO and SA. They went 7 with a 65 win team.
 
The East is terrible but this Warriors team isn't a vintage team. They are without Iggy and lacking any rim protection and quality depth they used to have. You just can't be that jekyll and hyde and loosey goosey if you expect to sweep against anyone in the finals.
OMG they’re down to just two MVPs and four HOFers. What ever will they do without their fifth-best player? After all, Cleveland is only missing their second-best player!

If this ends in anything more than a gentleman’s sweep they should be embarrassed
 
I don't think they'll sweep. But they weren't really Jekyll/Hyde. Look at what they did to NO and SA. They went 7 with a 65 win team.
They are absolutely Jekyll and Hyde, Kerr and a couple of the players have even said as much. They've been great in third quarters, last year they were great the whole game going 16-1 in the playoffs.
 
.-.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,305
Messages
4,562,310
Members
10,457
Latest member
caw2


Top Bottom