Arturas better be torching Giddey’s contract extension right now
at least they got that sweet sweet 9/10 game gate revenue
2 Likes
I did hear today that the Suns are the first team to fire 3 coaches in 3 season since Ted Stepien, who is basically the gold standard of horrific NBA owners.
1 Like
It’s crazy bad effort it’s so weird.
They did but the secondary market prices and the empty seats are pretttaay interesting
TAPS THE SIGN
4 Likes
He is not the primary problem and maybe not even A problem
But the fact that Billy Donovan is the fourth most tenured head coach in the NBA is hilarious and proof positive that nothing matters
Also
2 Likes
The play in is always good for at least one of the most blatant “1-2-3-CANCUN!!!” games every year.
You see it on offense more than anything. One pretty poor slasher tries to take on a defense with no advantage, everyone else just watches.
2 Likes
Wow, both the Chicago Bulls and Sacramento Bulls lost.
1 Like
Sacramento also got rid of their GM after the game. That should solve their problems.
I think what we saw tonight is that some teams have a second gear - or at least know they need to find one - for big games and some teams are just not aware of the need or don’t have it in them (mixture of both - I just don’t think Sabonis, Lavine, Vuc have it in them obviously guys like Buzelis and Keegan Murray could just be learning a lesson here). Like, this Bulls team beat the Heat in all three games this year. It’s true that without Ball, without Ayo, and without Tre Jones they were missing the three guards they have that can guard (and yes, Tyler Herro had 3 blow-bys on Kevin Huerter in the first two minutes and no, Vuc did NOT rotate over, they got so deperate they put Giddey…the guy they’re normally trying to HIDE…on Herro). I walked away feeling ok on Buzelis defensively…he was mostly in the right spot, but guarding Bam is a tall order for him right now. He got there, but Bam can just brush him aside.
Like Duncan pointed this out…in Q1, Lavine tossed a lazy pass that got pick-sixed by Max Christie, and Lavine, basically the fastest man in the NBA, wasn’t even in frame when Christie dunked it. I’ve imbibed enough of his career to feel like this isn’t him being lazy or whatever - he genuinely wants to win. I just don’t think he’s wired to expend the effort necessary here.
These play-in games need to go, I think. Of the 8 teams that played, I think only 3 gave a credible effort worthy of a playoff team (both participants in Warriors/Grizz that was a leigtimately good game and the Magic who just absolutely turned the water off on the Hawks).
2 Likes
I’d be perfectly fine with getting rid of the play-in game too, or at least reducing it down to an 8/9 game. Guaranteeing 2/3 of the league is either in the playoffs or play-in is probably the factor that’s devaluing the regular season the most.
There are already 82 games to determine the playoff field and generally speaking there aren’t 20 playoff caliber teams in the NBA. Any format where there’s a possibility that a 39 win team can make it in over a 48 win team because they play in a one game elimination setting, feels like a flawed system to me.
The biggest pro that seems to come out of the play-in tournament is that the older teams get a week of rest? That’s about all I can think of because it hasn’t reduced tanking.
2 Likes
The biggest pro is how much it makes the regular season matter in a real conference
2 Likes
It does seem like you see young teams in their first playoffs never really figure out the level they need to get to.
Idk if this is a shot at the Eastern Conference, but I’m a Spurs fan and I don’t see it making a huge difference out West most years either (except for last year when 11 teams were .500 or better). There is a clear incentive to avoid the play-in from both sides. Good teams want a top 6 seed to avoid any risk of losing their season to two games, but bad teams want to be as high in the draft order as possible. So the idea makes sense that they want to promote competitiveness in theory, but in actuality you end up with middling teams that frankly aren’t that good.
Looking back through the history of the play-in, I like the initial idea from the bubble better. There was some condition that if the 9 seed was within X number of games of the the 8 seed, then it triggered a play-in game. Even then the 9 seed had to beat the 8 seed twice to get in, while the 8 seed only had to win once to advance. I would support that format much more since the play-in would at least be earned, whereas now it’s a formality.
1 Like
The real radical idea that will never happen is after like 60 games or whatever to do the bubble thing and just split the league into contenders and noncontenders.
1 Like
I think the Warriors as presently constituted are a serious team that could very well win their series (I believe they’re favored too)
I think that series is going to be interesting, when we talk about young teams not knowing how high effort needs to be, etc., given who they’re playing (guys who definitely know). Like, the way the Rockets win is to apply all that youth and wild athleticism at high pressure/high effort plays (turning the Warriors over, running, crashing the glass).
Really, the whole 1st round looks interesting mostly
The 1 seeds won’t get pushed, the Celtics won’t either. But Rockets/Warriors, Nuggets/Clippers, Lakers/TWolves, Pacers/Bucks, Pistons/Knicks all offer some intrigue
Can Harden play ok in the playoffs? Rockets youth/athleticism vs Warriors age and savvy! The Bucks probably have the best player in the East - can they win a single series? Can the Wolves d-up the Lakers?
2 Likes
Yeah, in the west, you had 7 teams playing hard through the wire to avoid the playin. I think that sssooort of would have happened though, because the gap between the Thunder and Rockets is such that you’d prefer not to have that 8 seed, and the conference doesn’t generally have this much parity.
The 9/10 spots didn’t solve the tanking at the bottom because nobody wanted them other than the Kings, and the Mavs won too much early to tank out of it
but still, you really only had 3 teams in the NBA affirmatively driving for those spots - the two dumbest franchises in the NBA (Bulls, Kangz) and the Heat who obviously had their whole year go haywire and just benching their whole roster wasn’t practical
1 Like
Oh yeah, I totally agree that there’s an incentive to avoid the play-in if you’re in the 7/8 range and that makes teams care more about the regular season at the top of the conference. My complaint with the play-in is that the 9/10 teams generally aren’t playoff worthy. I better understand your point now and it’s completely valid that the play-in adds incentive for the top half of the conference. I still think you could pull Western conference standings from most of the 2010’s where there were 8 or more teams with 45+ wins, and that’s before the play-in. So idk if the play-in made the conference more competitive, or if there’s just been more talent there for at least the last decade.
I guess I’ll clarify/summarize my point: I’m fine with the play-in if there are deserving teams in the 9/10 spot. If the NBA set up a stipulation that you have to be within 3 games of the 8 seed to set up a play-in game/tournament, then you still have the pro of increased competition 1-8 to avoid the play-in, but you don’t reward teams that are 10 wins worse in the standings with a one-game elimination opportunity at a playoff series that they didn’t earn over an 82 game season.
1 Like
The Warriors plays like one of the best team when Steph and Jimmy are healthy or playing together. That tracks.