We are probably a play in team again….

[sturt]

11 hours ago, JeffS17 said:

This is complete conjecture.  Having a lower threshold than your supremely conservative guidelines on when we should draw conclusions about the team does not mean people are uncomfortable with ambiguity.

I would take issue with "supremely conservative," of course.

Rather, I've cited very recent... very real life... examples of teams that demonstrate why coming to a conclusion this early is, to the contrary, hyperanxious (nah, it's not a word, but it should be).

Now, to be fair to you, yes, you're right.... assigning a motive for that hyperanxiousness (ie, discomfort with ambiguity) is, indeed, conjecture on my part. I can't read minds. It's just the best way I can make any sense of people displaying that attitude. I'm open to other theories, but for now, it is the most reasonable one, imo.

 

11 hours ago, JeffS17 said:

JTB even ended his post with "I hope I'm wrong" which does not indicate a conclusion but rather a weak proposition of what we are looking at this season.  

Routinely, I resist citing any specific person as being, in fact, guilty of the flaw I've cited, unless you see I'm also quoting and responding directly to that person.

You and I agree on the precise words of that sentence you wrote here. (And did you notice?... JTB apparently approved of my post on page 1 of the thread. Kum-bah-ya.)

 

11 hours ago, JeffS17 said:

No one here is damning us to a play-in, just observing what is a likely reality based on what we have seen this far into the season.  

I can agree with that, too... haven't read every post word-for-word, but for the most part, seems people are leaving themselves some room to be persuaded otherwise.

Of course, my thing is "Why are we even asking the question at all?"

And yet, I'm  the one being damned for showing why the question is premature. I know, I know... had I not gotten into plausible motives for why people probably have let themselves go there, maybe I get a pass.

But nah...

  

11 hours ago, Final_quest said:

Hanging your hat on the hope that you are a team that turns it on during the last 50 games because others have done it before is more of a fan, or even homer, take. 

Again, again........... it's inaccurate. I'm neither committed to cynicism/pessimism nor committed to idealism/optimism. Not hanging my hat on anything. I'm agnostic. I'm content to wait for better, stronger information before going there.

 

To the contrary, you can't get more realistic than to say, "We haven't seen this full roster's rotation together for even two games. They're seemingly close, though. It shouldn't be long before they have a half-dozen or so."

 

Not a homer. A realist.

And. Not a cynic. A realist.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

7 hours ago, macdaddy said:

I said we had 2 of the 3 best players on the court against the Knicks in that series and you seemed to disagree with that.  

 

Didn't the Knicks beat us 3 - 0 in that regular season, with Randle playing in beast mode and Rose also killing us?

With most sportswriters picking us to lose in 6 games, I bet they would disagree that we had 2 of the best 3 players in that series.  There's even debate as to if they would've picked Trae to be the best player, especially with the way Randle was playing in the 2nd half of that season.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

2 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

Didn't the Knicks beat us 3 - 0 in that regular season, with Randle playing in beast mode and Rose also killing us?

With most sportswriters picking us to lose in 6 games, I bet they would disagree that we had 2 of the best 3 players in that series.  There's even debate as to if they would've picked Trae to be the best player, especially with the way Randle was playing in the 2nd half of that season.

 

Now afterwards, it may have been proven that we had 2 of the 3 best . . even 5 of the best 7 players.  But going into that series, I don't think people thought of us like that.  We were the 5th seed.  And 90% of the sports world thought we were going to lose that series.

[Plainview1981]

On 12/26/2022 at 10:36 PM, JTB said:

I didn’t realize until tonight that the Nets and 76ers are both 8-10 games over .500….Both have also been on decent win streaks lately.

Meanwhile our Hawks are hovering around.500 again. I don’t think we can place blame on injury with this one. We simply just aren’t a top 5 seed like many of us thought.

 

Philly and Brooklyn are rolling and dare I say it!…that kid Ben Simmons has been playing exceptionally well as the games go on. He’s helping turn Brooklyn into a two way monster. Kyrie has been balling out since returning from suspension too and KD is KD.

 

Cavs are also better than us and play more cohesively.

 

Shockingly the Knicks, Hawks, Pacers all appear to be in the same tier and honestly the Pacers may be the best of the bunch.

 

im not trying to be negative….I’ll leave that to the many other posters around here but reality (at least for me) is setting in. Going to be a lot pissed off fans when they see us sitting at 7th seed in east around all star break . I really do hope I’m wrong.

Young and Murray are lousy lead players for a team. And Schlenk got a promotion basically?

With the Hawks... People fail upwards it appears. If you are lousy at your job you get promotions and more money.

[NBASupes]

9 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

Now afterwards, it may have been proven that we had 2 of the 3 best . . even 5 of the best 7 players.  But going into that series, I don't think people thought of us like that.  We were the 5th seed.  And 90% of the sports world thought we were going to lose that series.

90% of the sports world thought we were losing to the Knicks, Bucks, and 76ers. We have never had the public on our side

[JTB]

I can admit when I wrote this thread I was upset but at the same time level headed with my OWN beliefs.

 

After that shit show last night…it unfortunately looks like I’m right and I don’t want to be.

 

[macdaddy]

12 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

Didn't the Knicks beat us 3 - 0 in that regular season, with Randle playing in beast mode and Rose also killing us?

With most sportswriters picking us to lose in 6 games, I bet they would disagree that we had 2 of the best 3 players in that series.  There's even debate as to if they would've picked Trae to be the best player, especially with the way Randle was playing in the 2nd half of that season.

I think my point is being missed.  

All i'm saying is look at the two teams and say who are the best 3 players between the two teams.  Not who had some really good games or who won head to head match ups.  

Outside of New York fans i think if you gave people our two rosters and said pick most talented and effective players at that time it would be:

Trae, Randle, JC or Bogi.    

Rose was running on fumes and everyone knew it.  Barrett (like Randle) averaged 20 points very inefficiently.