Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $390 of $700 target

STAND PAT!!!!!!


Spud2nique

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
22 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

You guys can give your opinion, and I will state mine.  

Were we contenders last year?  No. 
We out performed our actual standing in the league, and Milwaukee proved they had a championship supporting cast when they beat our supporting cast.  We got to isolate those conditions when both of our best players went down.  The Hawks were awesome, but Milwaukee had 3 all stars instead of 1 which proved to be the difference.
Getting to the final 4 teams is not always an indicator that you are a true contender, and in our case this year's results are a good indicator that we were not an actual top 4 team last year. 

What makes a contender? You usually need at least two HOF players on your roster.  Many teams have three, and many of them who win the title are two way players.  (But the Pistons? Yeah they are the exception to the rule.)

It's cool to believe that we have a championship level roster, but I consider that a homer take, which is fine.  Believe what you want, and I'm cheering for the same result as you.  I just believe we still need to improve the roster and add at least one major piece, that's the difference.

 

What are the two Hall of Famer's on the Bucks roster? Or how about Cleveland in 2016? Would Klay or Draymond even be in the vicinity of HoF consideration if it weren't for the championships? Even as is it's not a sure thing they make it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Atlantaholic said:

What are the two Hall of Famer's on the Bucks roster? Or how about Cleveland in 2016? Would Klay or Draymond even be in the vicinity of HoF consideration if it weren't for the championships? Even as is it's not a sure thing they make it. 

Kyrie will be HOF.

Not sure about the Bucks, but I can tell you at least 90% of champions have two HOF players.  If the Bucks win again both Middleton and Jrue could end up in the Hall, but Middleton is more likely.  

People trade for them without including HOF in the return.  Chris Paul to Phoenix, AD to the Lakers, etc.  

If we are trying to win a title without all stars and HOF level players, it is an unconventional path. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 hour ago, shakes said:

should've qualified that as outside shooter.  He's a mediocre outside shooter and yet another player on our team who can' t make wide open corner 3s.

 

 

What is his % of corner 3's?  When you are shooting 43% from 3pt range on over 3 attempts per game, I have a hard time thinking it stinks.  How good must his non-corner % be if his corner % is garbage?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
46 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Were we contenders last year?  No. 

That's inaccurate on its face, disputed by the facts of what happened.

 

But. At least we finally learn why there's such an allergy to standing pat... you feel like that was the aberration... ie, when we basically had everyone except Hunter healthy... and this is what we should expect from this roster... ie, when we've had constant disruption to players' availability and to the expected rotation every game.

 

Got it. Don't agree, but that's okay. At least I see the more precise difference in perspective now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, shakes said:

should've qualified that as outside shooter.  He's a mediocre outside shooter and yet another player on our team who can' t make wide open corner 3s.

 

 

Uhm...

You do know that JC is shooting about 43.5% from 3 and is currently 6th in the league in 3 pt percentage?  You do know that over the past 3 yrs he's been flirting and married to being a 50/40 guy.. meaning above 50% from the Field and above 40% from 3.  That puts him in very high company.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sturt said:

That's inaccurate on its face, disputed by the facts of what happened.

 

But. At least we finally learn why there's such an allergy to standing pat... you feel like that was the aberration... ie, when we basically had everyone except Hunter healthy... and this is what we should expect from this roster... ie, when we've had constant disruption to players' availability and to the expected rotation every game.

 

Got it. Don't agree, but that's okay. At least I see the more precise difference in perspective now.

Would you say the Lakers are contenders because they won two years ago with Lebron and AD?

No. They’re current results suggest not.  We’re in the same boat except we weren’t even real contenders last year.  

Facts are champions have two HOF players.  That criteria has held up for decades.  Who are those guys on the Hawks?

There’s nothing inaccurate about saying conference finals participants  are not always contenders.  Were we contenders the year Lebron swept us in the ECF?  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

You guys can give your opinion, and I will state mine.  

Were we contenders last year?  No. 
We out performed our actual standing in the league, and Milwaukee proved they had a championship supporting cast when they beat our supporting cast.  We got to isolate those conditions when both of our best players went down.  The Hawks were awesome, but Milwaukee had 3 all stars instead of 1 which proved to be the difference.
Getting to the final 4 teams is not always an indicator that you are a true contender, and in our case this year's results are a good indicator that we were not an actual top 4 team last year. 

What makes a contender? You usually need at least two HOF players on your roster.  Many teams have three, and many of them who win the title are two way players.  (But the Pistons? Yeah they are the exception to the rule.)

It's cool to believe that we have a championship level roster, but I consider that a homer take, which is fine.  Believe what you want, and I'm cheering for the same result as you.  I just believe we still need to improve the roster and add at least one major piece, that's the difference.

 

So a contender has nothing to do with what you do.. it has everything to do with who is on your team?  That's interesting.  So by your definition... we could have won the NBA championship and never been a contender because we didn't have at least two HOF players on our roster?

Here's something else that you may find interesting FQ....

If our team... as constructed were to win the NBA championship twice.  Do you know that the league will make players on this team into HOFers... simply because of what they were able to accomplish?  Trae, JC, and Clint would probably be guys considered for the HOF.  Because unlike a  contender... a HOF nomation is based on what you do.  Nate would most certainly become a HOF coach.   And all of that would happen before we even became contenders in your eyes. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
31 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Kyrie will be HOF.

Not sure about the Bucks, but I can tell you at least 90% of champions have two HOF players.  If the Bucks win again both Middleton and Jrue could end up in the Hall, but Middleton is more likely.  

People trade for them without including HOF in the return.  Chris Paul to Phoenix, AD to the Lakers, etc.  

If we are trying to win a title without all stars and HOF level players, it is an unconventional path. 

You know Character means a lot when it comes to HOF.  Kyrie's quirkiness may keep him out of the HOF. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Diesel said:

So a contender has nothing to do with what you do.. it has everything to do with who is on your team?  That's interesting.  So by your definition... we could have won the NBA championship and never been a contender because we didn't have at least two HOF players on our roster?

Here's something else that you may find interesting FQ....

If our team... as constructed were to win the NBA championship twice.  Do you know that the league will make players on this team into HOFers... simply because of what they were able to accomplish?  Trae, JC, and Clint would probably be guys considered for the HOF.  Because unlike a  contender... a HOF nomation is based on what you do.  Nate would most certainly become a HOF coach.   And all of that would happen before we even became contenders in your eyes. 

 

Actually that was true for the Pistons title.  They were not considered contenders going into the playoffs and won anyways.  Getting to a conference finals does not make you a contender, especially if you have a losing record currently.  
I don’t see HOF with Collins or Capela at this point.  They haven’t even made an all star team.  
Also, it’s not just my eyes.  Current Vegas odds suggest we’re not a contender.  No pundit is picking us to win.  You guys are actually in the extreme minority calling our team a title contender.  I’m agreeing with 99.99% of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
7 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Would you say the Lakers are contenders because they won two years ago with Lebron and AD?

No. They’re current results suggest not.  We’re in the same boat except we weren’t even real contenders last year.  

Facts are champions have two HOF players.  That criteria has held up for decades.  Who are those guys on the Hawks?

There’s nothing inaccurate about saying conference finals participants  are not always contenders.  Were we contenders the year Lebron swept us in the ECF?  
 

 

FQ...  You've just contradicted yourself.  Think about it. 

Bron - HOF

Russ - HOF

AD - HOF

Melo - HOF

Dwight - HOF

That's at least 5 hall of famers and you're saying that the Lakers are not contenders....  Based on what they've done....

Then you turn back around and say.. The Hawks don't have 2 or more HOFers so they can't be contenders.

Do you miss all this contradiction that you're giving?

You are trying to tell me how fast a car is  by describing the engine. 

I'm telling you that my car go from 0 - 60 in 4.5 seconds.

Your telling me that most cars that go from 0-60 in under 5 seconds  has to have a V8 engine or better.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Diesel said:

FQ...  You've just contradicted yourself.  Think about it. 

Bron - HOF

Russ - HOF

AD - HOF

Melo - HOF

Dwight - HOF

That's at least 5 hall of famers and you're saying that the Lakers are not contenders....  Based on what they've done....

Then you turn back around and say.. The Hawks don't have 2 or more HOFers so they can't be contenders.

Do you miss all this contradiction that you're giving?

You are trying to tell me how fast a car is  by describing the engine. 

I'm telling you that my car go from 0 - 60 in 4.5 seconds.

Your telling me that most cars that go from 0-60 in under 5 seconds  has to have a V8 engine or better.

 

 

I’m not contradicting myself.  I never said every team with two future HOF players is a contender.  I said the champions have two HOF guys.  That holds up over decades.  
 

Doesn’t mean every team that gets two HOF guys is a contender.  
 

You need a car to drive across the country.  It doesn’t mean every person who gets a car is driving that far.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
40 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Uhm...

You do know that JC is shooting about 43.5% from 3 and is currently 6th in the league in 3 pt percentage?  You do know that over the past 3 yrs he's been flirting and married to being a 50/40 guy.. meaning above 50% from the Field and above 40% from 3.  That puts him in very high company.

 

Those stats are meaningless when you consider the quality of shot being taken.  Every single 3pt shot JC takes is wide open.  A good shooter would be shooting closer to 60% with the same looks JC is getting.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, shakes said:

should've qualified that as outside shooter.  He's a mediocre outside shooter and yet another player on our team who can' t make wide open corner 3s.

 

 

I think for his position he's exceptional. Are you aware he's top 10 in the league in 3 point percentage? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
6 minutes ago, warcore said:

I think for his position he's exceptional. Are you aware he's top 10 in the league in 3 point percentage? 

^This and when you add the 'regular PF' things he can do - it's hard to duplicate.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shakes said:

Those stats are meaningless when you consider the quality of shot being taken.  Every single 3pt shot JC takes is wide open.  A good shooter would be shooting closer to 60% with the same looks JC is getting.

Here is the thing, JC isn't a "shooter", he is a big man, who can shoot.

And those numbers for anyone are good, but for a big man are incredible. Especially when you consider his ability to finish in the paint.

John Collins is a highly efficient offensive player, point blank period. 
He doesn't create offense, but if you haven't noticed we have a historically productive offensive engine in Trae, and having guys that can finish his plays is much more important than having more guys that have to take the ball out of his hands to get going. JC is a perfect fit with Trae, and one thing that consistently gets lost when players try to build super teams, is fit. 

Names on paper don't play games. There are many more teams with 2 or more HoFer's that get bounced each year than there are who win it all. It helps to have big time players but it's not the cure all. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

we weren’t even real contenders last year

I repeat.

2 hours ago, sturt said:

That's inaccurate on its face, disputed by the facts of what happened.

 

But. At least we finally learn why there's such an allergy to standing pat... you feel like that was the aberration... ie, when we basically had everyone except Hunter healthy... and this is what we should expect from this roster... ie, when we've had constant disruption to players' availability and to the expected rotation every game.

 

Got it. Don't agree, but that's okay. At least I see the more precise difference in perspective now.

 

1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

Would you say the Lakers are contenders because they won two years ago with Lebron and AD?

Not getting the relevance.

Wouldn't the health of the current team need to be something similar to the health of that championship team? (I mean, in order to have any gravity to the bigger question.)

We're about 55 games through the current season. Which of the previous two seasons... one numbering 71 regular season games and taking a championship, the other numbering 72 and ending with a disappointing thud... is more similar to this one?

2019-20. Then 2020-21. Then current.

 

2022-01-20_18-29-55.png

2022-01-20_18-31-47.png

2022-01-20_18-32-45.png

 

It's not complicated. For a GM to have an accurate picture of what his roster is capable of achieving, his best 10 players need to play 90-ish% or more of the games together.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, sturt said:

It's not complicated. For a GM to have an accurate picture of what his roster is capable of achieving, his best 10 players need to play 90-ish% or more of the games together.

And what percentage of teams would you say have done that this season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...