News and Notes: Updated between Games

[Spud2nique]

This Clipps Suns game is one of the best I’ve seen so far. Good ball.

WOWWWE BOOKER JUST HIT A FADE GAME WINNER!

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Luka must've heard people talking cap about him.

Edited August 4, 2020 by TheNorthCydeRises

[Spud2nique]

9 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Luka must've heard people talking cap about him.

34/20/12 is nutty. Basically the 20 boards. 

[AHF]

59 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

This Clipps Suns game is one of the best I’ve seen so far. Good ball.

WOWWWE BOOKER JUST HIT A FADE GAME WINNER!

Wow.  Guess Kawhi has to hand his Finals MVP back in after losing to the Suns!

[bleachkit]

33 minutes ago, AHF said:

Wow.  Guess Kawhi has to hand his Finals MVP back in after losing to the Suns!

Kawhi is a bum. Overrated as heck. Can't even beat the freaking Suns. 

[Peoriabird]

5 hours ago, AHF said:

Did you come up with any other than Magic Johnson who you were convinced about within the first two years of their career?  This just goes back to whether the term superstar is something you would reserve for veterans even when looking back on the careers of HOFers whereas I might be more lenient in my own view as I describe what I called "young superstars."

I was or am pretty convinced about the importance of both Trae and Luka (and IT and LeBron and Magic and Shaq and many others) to their team by the end of their second season.  The Mavs went from winning 29% of the time pre-Luka to 40% of the time to 58% of the time with Luka.  The Hawks haven't seen that improvement but I don't put that on Trae and I do think he makes a huge impact on the team's success.  The numbers will come for him, IMO.  I think it is pretty obvious with both of them.

I'm pretty sure Dallas won more than 29% of the games Luka missed over the last 2 years.

[Spud2nique]

12 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Kawhi is a bum. Overrated as heck. Can't even beat the freaking Suns. 

Nah, he’ll be juuuuuuuust fine. Haters gonna hate.

 

[Peoriabird]

5 hours ago, AHF said:

The Mavs went from winning 29% of the time pre-Luka to 40% of the time to 58% of the time with Luka.  The Hawks haven't seen that improvement but I don't put that on Trae and I do think he makes a huge impact on the team's success.  The numbers will come for him, IMO.  I think it is pretty obvious with both of them.

In fact the Mavs have won half of their games over the past 2 years without Luka in the line up.  They are under .500 with him in the line up over the past 2 years

[TheNorthCydeRises]

2 hours ago, Spud2nique said:

This Clipps Suns game is one of the best I’ve seen so far. Good ball.

WOWWWE BOOKER JUST HIT A FADE GAME WINNER!

 

 

When I look at the difficulty of Booker's shot, I think . . . who on our team can make a shot like that, or even get that shot off with people draped all over him like that?

[Spud2nique]

2 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

 

When I look at the difficulty of Booker's shot, I think . . . who on our team can make a shot like that, or even get that shot off with people draped all over him like that?

Ya that thing was almost.. lucky lol. I woulda yelled : AYYYE DEV OPEN UR EYES NEXT TIME! 
 

But over PG13 with no better possible defense. That doesn’t happen again I’d say.

[kg01]

12 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

When I look at the difficulty of Booker's shot, I think . . . who on our team can make a shot like that, or even get that shot off with people draped all over him like that?

Funny.  When I look at it, I think ... "man that was a nice shot but .... I hope we getta better look than a closed-eyes, fall-away, lucky-a** heave .... wait, didn't Book say last season was his last outta the playoffs?  what does that mean?  Is he now gonna demand a trade since the Suns are a crap organization and, even if they fall into the bubble-offs this year it'll be a 1-hit wonder?  ok well, if he's not gonna demand a trade, is he gonna quit basketball?  'cause that'd make his statement true."

I have a lotta thoughts, 'cyde.

[AHF]

15 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

In fact the Mavs have won half of their games over the past 2 years without Luka in the line up.  They are under .500 with him in the line up over the past 2 years

First, I think this is silly on its face if you've watch the Mavs.  He obviously makes them a better team.  Given the small sample size, I find it hard to believe any statistician would find any degree of significance around this.

Even though I find it pretty meaningless, the Mavs have won over 60% of their games this year with Luka and 50% without him so this is entirely driven by his rookie season.  The same thing applied to Magic.  The Lakers were better in the games he missed than they were in the games where he played his rookie year.

LeBron's Cavs were better both his rookie and sophomore seasons without him than they were with him.  I am sure one could keep going on.  Do you really think there is a cause and effect here where rookie Magic, young LeBron, young Luka, etc. were hurting their teams?

I guess more to the point, is this your new standard for whether someone is a superstar?  If their team is better when they play than when they don't they are a superstar?  Or is it a disqualifying factor for people who meet some other test?  I'm still lost on this.  Like if Trae puts up 30 and 12 next year and we win 65% of our games with him but he misses 8 games and we go 7-1 in those games then he can't be a superstar because that shows he really hurts the team rather than helps them?

 

[Peoriabird]

4 minutes ago, AHF said:

First, I think this is silly on its face if you've watch the Mavs.  He obviously makes them a better team.  Given the small sample size, I find it hard to believe any statistician would find any degree of significance around this.

Even though I find it pretty meaningless, the Mavs have won over 60% of their games this year with Luka and 50% without him so this is entirely driven by his rookie season.  The same thing applied to Magic.  The Lakers were better in the games he missed than they were in the games where he played his rookie year.

LeBron's Cavs were better both his rookie and sophomore seasons without him than they were with him.  I am sure one could keep going on.  Does you really think there is a cause and effect here where rookie Magic, young LeBron, young Luka, etc. were hurting their teams?

 

 

Luka has missed 22 games during his 2 year career which isn't a small sample size.  The Mavs are 11-11.  Secondly,  You are the one who said he was a superstar now which I disagree with.  He hasn't won enough nor are his skills unique to be given that designation.  Maybe one day his teams don't struggle to beat the Kings or lose to the Suns but as of right now, they do.  I see his team getting murdered in the 1st round of the playoffs.

[bleachkit]

58 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Luka has missed 22 games during his 2 year career which isn't a small sample size.  The Mavs are 11-11.  Secondly,  You are the one who said he was a superstar now which I disagree with.  He hasn't won enough nor are his skills unique to be given that designation.  Maybe one day his teams don't struggle to beat the Kings or lose to the Suns but as of right now, they do.  I see his team getting murdered in the 1st round of the playoffs.

Name the players currently in the NBA that meet your criteria for being a superstar. This is not a rhetorical question, name the names.

[AHF]

48 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Luka has missed 22 games during his 2 year career which isn't a small sample size.  The Mavs are 11-11.  Secondly,  You are the one who said he was a superstar now which I disagree with.  He hasn't won enough nor are his skills unique to be given that designation.  Maybe one day his teams don't struggle to beat the Kings or lose to the Suns but as of right now, they do.  I see his team getting murdered in the 1st round of the playoffs.

I don't think you know what small sample size means in this respect.  We are talking about whether a set of numbers is statistically significant.  When a couple of games going one way or the other can change things, the number is generally not significant.  (Example:  If the Mavs lost two of those games they would be 9-13 which would be worse.)  You see this with Luka's numbers, LeBron's numbers, etc.  This becomes even more strained when you realize the Mavs have a better record when he plays this year than when he doesn't so you are talking solely about the games he missed as a rookie driving this.   

Bill Russell missed 24 games his rookie season.  That is more than Luka has missed.  Boston won 67% of the games without Russell and only 58% with him.  I guess he wasn't a superstar yet?  Come on.  His impact was obvious.

Have you looked at numbers like this for any other players you consider superstars?  I would guess it is pretty random whether their teams have better or worse records except in cases where the superstar misses a huge number of games like Jordan's sophomore year.  

[AHF]

5 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Name the players currently in the NBA that meet your criteria for being a superstar. This is not a rhetorical question, name the names.

I already asked and it has been a changing list.  He gave Allen Iverson and Isiah Thomas and then when he tried to explain why they were superstars and Trae and Luka aren't he said because of their winning.  Then I pointed out that Luka won more than IT and Trae won more than AI to this point in their careers.  

I think he really thinks young players can't be superstars.  He has only identified people whose careers are done and who are already HOFers or who have no-brainer HOF resumes and are 10+ years into their career (like LeBron).  

[Spud2nique]

11 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

name the names.

Sheesh how bout a please?

[Peoriabird]

I've named superstars like Lebron Magic, Jordan, Bird, Barkley, shaq Olajuwon, Curry, Durant, Leonard..etc. what do want me to say? These are superstars...Luka is not!

[AHF]

18 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

I've named superstars like Lebron Magic, Jordan, Bird, Barkley, shaq Olajuwon, Curry, Durant, Leonard..etc. what do want me to say? These are superstars...Luka is not!

Are these guys you believe became superstars or were superstars by the end of their second year?

I am pretty sure your list of people who qualify by the end of their second season excludes most of these guys.

[bleachkit]

17 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

I've named superstars like Lebron Magic, Jordan, Bird, Barkley, shaq Olajuwon, Curry, Durant, Leonard..etc. what do want me to say? These are superstars...Luka is not!

That's setting the bar high. Luka has a good chance to among those guys some day, Trae as well, based on their early career numbers. Guys like Ja Morant and Devin Booker too. They all have another decade or so to prove show their wares, and of course players we aren't even talking about will come along too. I'm less bullish on Zion, seeing how they are babying him at age 20, don't think that's a good sign.