76 replies to this topic

[Hayter]

Nanizm, on 15 May 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Picking games doesnt mean someone knows more about basketball. If you are picking with the spread you are essentially picking games at 50/50. Someone with no knowledge of basketball can out perform someone that is a basketball genius and covers the game for a living. It doesnt tell you anything.

  listen to him trying to sound all rationale...

[EL GRANDE WHOPPO]

Nanizm, on 15 May 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Picking games doesnt mean someone knows more about basketball. If you are picking with the spread you are essentially picking games at 50/50. Someone with no knowledge of basketball can out perform someone that is a basketball genius and covers the game for a living. It doesnt tell you anything.

Your joking right? The better NBA handicappers in Vegas probably know more about the game than most of the analysts and writers. You have to understand the game to beat the spread consistently.

[EL GRANDE WHOPPO]

Nanizm, on 15 May 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

More CP3 than Blake. A lot more. That is the main reason. Stars win championships. interchanagable role players contribute.

How many rings does CP3 have? Probably because it takes a complete team to win a championship but we are not going there again. Atleast I am not.

[EL GRANDE WHOPPO]

Hayter, on 15 May 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

  listen to him trying to sound all rationale...

Trying is the keyword there. Watching Clippers stars get hosed right now by Spurs and their teamball approach. Miami stars did not get it done vs. a team with no stars.

[EL GRANDE WHOPPO]

EL GRANDE WHOPPO, on 15 May 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

How many rings does CP3 have? Probably because it takes a complete team to win a championship but we are not going there again. Atleast I am not. Sorry I guess that i just went there. Forget I mentioned it.

[Lordoftherings]

Nanizm, on 28 March 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

Wow there is just so much wrong here.


The Lakers don’t NEED to have a potent bench. A potent bench is not a requirement for a championship team. The Lakers currently have the least productive bench in terms of points.

Who are the legit championship contenders? Its OKC, Chicago and Miami. The bench scoring for hose teams are 14th, 21st and 28th (only 2 spots from the last place Lakers) respectively.

When the Lakers won the championship in 2008-09 they had the 16th most productive bench and beat the Magic in the Finals who had the 29th (2nd to last) most productive.

In the Lakers 2009-10 Championship they had the 28th most productive bench and beat the Celtics in the finals who had the 25th.

BENCHS ARE OVERRATED!!!!!! You win with your superstars

  I don't think stats tell the whole story collectively. Mike Brown is a stats guy and I don't see a basketball genius in him. Bottom line is that Players like Harden are stars with tremendous talent that would start or could start on any team in this league. All of the contenders you mention have the most important quality a bench can possess and that is outstanding relief defense. When The Pistons dismantled the Lakers in the Finals it was done with Defense and a solid bench. Chicago's success is the result of defense and a deep bench. Miami's success is the direct result of transition points from their defense. A bench's true value lies in it's abilty to keep the contest close. Bench scoring is always a bonus, but it is rebounding and defensive stops that set the tone. The LAKER'S Achilles heel is their pathetic bench defense and absolute identity crisis as a defensive unit. Mike Brown's latest experiment with a LAKER 2-3 zone was an epic failure. If The LAKERS are going to have a shot in the OKC series the defensive energy off the bench needs to be off the charts and we need to play 5 on 5. That being said ... The LAKER Bench MUST HAVE a legit shot creator. Currently we have a bunch of brick layers afraid to take the open shot. Our bench players must take the open shot. FAILING TO EXECUTE because players are reluctant to pull the trigger on good looks at the basket is 80% of the reason we get killed in transition. So I disagree. The LAKER bench has a vital role to play and sound defense will lead to greater scoring opportunities.

Just my two cents.

[Nanizm]

EL GRANDE WHOPPO, on 15 May 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Your joking right? The better NBA handicappers in Vegas probably know more about the game than most of the analysts and writers. You have to understand the game to beat the spread consistently.

They know more about beating the spread, not the game itself. They study trends, factors that contribute to the final outcome of scores. They cant break down plays, player skills, etc. Have you heard when guys from Vegas books go on the radio and how they talk. This team on the 2nd night of a back to back, this team doesnt play well in this areana, this player has a bad match up historically against this team. They work off a spreadsheet and examine variables in order to percentage of probabilities for outcomes. They are well informed but on a different side of the game.

[Nanizm]

Lordoftherings, on 15 May 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

I don't think stats tell the whole story collectively. Mike Brown is a stats guy and I don't see a basketball genius in him. Bottom line is that Players like Harden are stars with tremendous talent that would start or could start on any team in this league. All of the contenders you mention have the most important quality a bench can possess and that is outstanding relief defense. When The Pistons dismantled the Lakers in the Finals it was done with Defense and a solid bench. Chicago's success is the result of defense and a deep bench. Miami's success is the direct result of transition points from their defense. A bench's true value lies in it's abilty to keep the contest close. Bench scoring is always a bonus, but it is rebounding and defensive stops that set the tone. The LAKER'S Achilles heel is their pathetic bench defense and absolute identity crisis as a defensive unit. Mike Brown's latest experiment with a LAKER 2-3 zone was an epic failure. If The LAKERS are going to have a shot in the OKC series the defensive energy off the bench needs to be off the charts and we need to play 5 on 5. That being said ... The LAKER Bench MUST HAVE a legit shot creator. Currently we have a bunch of brick layers afraid to take the open shot. Our bench players must take the open shot. FAILING TO EXECUTE because players are reluctant to pull the trigger on good looks at the basket is 80% of the reason we get killed in transition. So I disagree. The LAKER bench has a vital role to play and sound defense will lead to greater scoring opportunities.

Just my two cents.

Of course stats never tell the whole story. They should support any argument you are making. And they are not just stats, those numbers are actual production that is occuring on the court. Today with advanced stats that are avaialble out there you can get a stat for any argument you are making.

The argument that was made here is a potent bench is not required for a champinoship team. The hisotry will show that many championship teams and teams getting to the champinoship had poor bench production. You can win with a poor bench or one that you dont rely on much. YOu can get away with a poor bench when you have Superstars and good starters that you can just play more. Those 2000s Lakers teams had poor benches. Look at their minutes per game, they hardly played. They won on teh backs of Kobe & Shaq and the rest of the starters filled in here and there. the bench did even less.

[Nanizm]

EL GRANDE WHOPPO, on 15 May 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

Trying is the keyword there. Watching Clippers stars get hosed right now by Spurs and their teamball approach. Miami stars did not get it done vs. a team with no stars.

Dirk is a star but had that tag that Lebron has right now about shrinking onthe big stage. he played like a superstar last year and finally broke threw. Dallas was deep and had many contribute to that championship. That is not a team that I am referring to in terms of championship teams that won with weak benches.

[Nanizm]

Hayter, on 15 May 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

  listen to him trying to sound all rationale...

You wouldnt know rationale if had big titties, grinded the hell out of your lap and spit on your junk.

[Hayter]

Nanizm, on 16 May 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

Dirk is a star but had that tag that Lebron has right now about shrinking onthe big stage. he played like a superstar last year and finally broke threw. Dallas was deep and had many contribute to that championship. That is not a team that I am referring to in terms of championship teams that won with weak benches.

really?  he finally broke through last year huh?  what did he do this year, shrink on the big stage again?  he had better teammates around him last year which is what won him the championship.  he's been a superstar for years.

[EvenSteven]

Nanizm, on 16 May 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

The argument that was made here is a potent bench is not required for a champinoship team. The hisotry will show that many championship teams and teams getting to the champinoship had poor bench production. You can win with a poor bench or one that you dont rely on much. YOu can get away with a poor bench when you have Superstars and good starters that you can just play more. Those 2000s Lakers teams had poor benches. Look at their minutes per game, they hardly played. They won on teh backs of Kobe & Shaq and the rest of the starters filled in here and there. the bench did even less.

I don't know what you're talking about the 2000's Lakers didn't have a good bench??  How about Robert Horry, Brian Shaw, Rick Fox, and Derek Fisher.  So you're just flinging stuff against the wall to see if they stick eh?
Without these bench guys the Lakers would be hard pressed to win one, let alone three straight.

[EL GRANDE WHOPPO]

Nanizm, on 16 May 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

They know more about beating the spread, not the game itself. They study trends, factors that contribute to the final outcome of scores. They cant break down plays, player skills, etc. Have you heard when guys from Vegas books go on the radio and how they talk. This team on the 2nd night of a back to back, this team doesnt play well in this areana, this player has a bad match up historically against this team. They work off a spreadsheet and examine variables in order to percentage of probabilities for outcomes. They are well informed but on a different side of the game.

Sorry but you have to know about the game to beat the spread consistently. There is a reason that an excellent gambler is called a wise guy. A real handicapper does breakdown the players and a teams strengths and weaknesses. The clowns that go on the radio are not true handicappers. They are fucking salesman trying to lure in the masses so they can sell them plays. Real handicappers make their own plays and live inside the sportsbooks. They are good enough to make a living on their own and do not need to sell their plays. I know because I lived this life myself for quite awhile. NBA basketball was not my things but MLB and NHL was. And of course the NFL and college football.

[EL GRANDE WHOPPO]

Hayter, on 16 May 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

really?  he finally broke through last year huh?  what did he do this year, shrink on the big stage again?  he had better teammates around him last year which is what won him the championship.  he's been a superstar for years.

CP3 says hello. Can say the same thing about him as you can Dirk. Wasted years of his career on teams that were not good enough to win. Reverse Dirk and Tim Duncan and Dirk has just as many rings as Duncan.

[Nanizm]

Hayter, on 16 May 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

really?  he finally broke through last year huh?  what did he do this year, shrink on the big stage again?  he had better teammates around him last year which is what won him the championship.  he's been a superstar for years.

He's been a superstar that has choked in the big moments. He played poorly against GS in that 1st round upset. He played poorly in that defeat to Miami. He played exceptionally well in last years run. He graduated to the next level of superstardom.

[Nanizm]

EL GRANDE WHOPPO, on 16 May 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

Sorry but you have to know about the game to beat the spread consistently. There is a reason that an excellent gambler is called a wise guy. A real handicapper does breakdown the players and a teams strengths and weaknesses. The clowns that go on the radio are not true handicappers. They are fucking salesman trying to lure in the masses so they can sell them plays. Real handicappers make their own plays and live inside the sportsbooks. They are good enough to make a living on their own and do not need to sell their plays. I know because I lived this life myself for quite awhile. NBA basketball was not my things but MLB and NHL was. And of course the NFL and college football.

Well you know that side of the industry better than I do but I dont see from where I am looking at it. I dont care to pick games other than for fun.

I love watching basketball, mainly the NBA, and have for a long time. I just want to watch, enjoy and argue about what I observe for fun. Thats it.

[Nanizm]

EvenSteven, on 16 May 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

I don't know what you're talking about the 2000's Lakers didn't have a good bench??  How about Robert Horry, Brian Shaw, Rick Fox, and Derek Fisher.  So you're just flinging stuff against the wall to see if they stick eh?
Without these bench guys the Lakers would be hard pressed to win one, let alone three straight.

You're just throwing names out there. In a previous post I showed you how what those guys were actually doing and it wasnt much. In 2001 and 2002 the Lakers bench was putrid and hardly played. Its your memory of a big shot here, a big play there that makes you think they did more. It wasnt really the case. Shaq and Kobe was scoring 60 a game, rebounding 20 a game and doing most of the work. They asked very little if anything out of the bench. Im not saying that the little that they did contribute wasnt important beacause it was. if one of their big shots didnt land than Lakers probably dont win 1 or maybe even 2 of those championships. but it still was very little that was asked of them.

[Hayter]

Nanizm, on 16 May 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

He's been a superstar that has choked in the big moments. He played poorly against GS in that 1st round upset. He played poorly in that defeat to Miami. He played exceptionally well in last years run. He graduated to the next level of superstardom.

that's funny.  i thought it had to do with them having tyson chandler who just so happened to be the defensive player of the year this year, not to mention, having jj barea who just so happens TO COME OFF THE BENCH who destroyed the lakers.  as well as a couple other pieces.  

if you look at his post seasons stats for the past 10 years, it looks pretty consistent to me.

[Hayter]

Nanizm, on 16 May 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

You're just throwing names out there. In a previous post I showed you how what those guys were actually doing and it wasnt much. In 2001 and 2002 the Lakers bench was putrid and hardly played. Its your memory of a big shot here, a big play there that makes you think they did more. It wasnt really the case. Shaq and Kobe was scoring 60 a game, rebounding 20 a game and doing most of the work. They asked very little if anything out of the bench. Im not saying that the little that they did contribute wasnt important beacause it was. if one of their big shots didnt land than Lakers probably dont win 1 or maybe even 2 of those championships. but it still was very little that was asked of them.

How do you go from ‘you can get away with a poor bench’, ‘you can win without bench production’ etc etc. etc  to  ‘if one of their big shots didnt land than Lakers probably dont win 1 or maybe even 2 of those championships’?!?!?!

I’m missing something there.  You say it like 1 or 2 championships are no big deals.  If they just won you 1 or 2 championships, IT MEANS THEIR PRODUCTION WAS HUGE.  

i guess to you it makes perfect sense but for the rest of us, regular humans, we don't understand.

[EL GRANDE WHOPPO]

Hayter, on 16 May 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

that's funny.  i thought it had to do with them having tyson chandler who just so happened to be the defensive player of the year this year, not to mention, having jj barea who just so happens TO COME OFF THE BENCH who destroyed the lakers.  as well as a couple other pieces.  

if you look at his post seasons stats for the past 10 years, it looks pretty consistent to me.

Dirk had one series against Spurs that was amazing and his team still lost. He shot something like 60% from the field and average something like 35 a game. Dirk has been great for years. Took years for Dallas to put enough talent around him.