• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official 2018 NBA Offseason Thread: the preseason cometh

RChildress107 said:
What "whole argument" against the Warriors? Where did I say their bench was weak? I would agree the strawman you seem to have built is dumb as hell.

The Warriors have had the greatest three year regular season run in league history. The 2016 team was not the best regular season team of all time.

And of course the Warriors have no control over who they play, but who they play still matters when discussing where they rank among the all time great teams. Their paths to the 15 and 17 championships were relatively easy.
Click to expand...

This too
 
The Warriors have played four playoff series in the last three years against teams with an SRS (basically margin of victory weighted by strength of schedule) of > 4 (last year's Jazz were exactly at 4). The '15 Cavs (missing 2 of their top 3), the '16 Thunder (KD blew 3-1 lead), '16 Cavs (lost), '17 Spurs (were losing game 1 by 23 before Kawhi went down).

The 96-98 Bulls played 7 such teams and won all 7 series.

The Warriors had no control over any of those things (except maybe the Kawhi injury), but it's still relevant.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
so every time a 40% three point shooter makes a three it was a longshot? because that's a binary outcome not a vs. field outcome and 60% of the time he will miss.
Click to expand...

You missed the entire point of my original post that 40% without context is meaningless. That 40% can be good or 40% can be a longshot.

This is a perfect example. If you shoot 40% on threes for the season, you are above average and that shot is a good one to take.

If the 40% to win a game is accurate, over the space of an NBA season you only win 33 games. The 60% team would win 49 games. The 60 team would have had the #4 seed in the East in the NBA last season and #6 in the West. The year before 60% would have gotten you the #3 seed in the East and #5 in the West. The 40% team would have been in the middle of the lottery or lower.

If the #4 seed plays the the #10/11 seed, by definition, a win by the lower seed is a lonsghot.

I fully understand that you have two problems with admitting my premise is correct:

1. You and others have stridently taken a position and find it difficult to admit you are wrong after all of this.
2.. This is more important. You and others can't admit that RJ is right.
 
If your team has a 40% chance to beat the Warriors, its a pretty good team. Only 40% chance to beat the Lakers, thats a bad team. #context
6bd4c6ab23a52c91b556a35003f5c91d.jpg
 
I've seen a few things that say things like -Same old Sixers. They are 1-4.

Well, yeah! They have played at Toronto, at Wiz, Celtics and Rockets. By the time they will have played 16 games, the Sixers will be done with the Rockets, Warriors and Jazz.
 
RJKarl said:
You missed the entire point of my original post that 40% without context is meaningless. That 40% can be good or 40% can be a longshot.

This is a perfect example. If you shoot 40% on threes for the season, you are above average and that shot is a good one to take.

If the 40% to win a game is accurate, over the space of an NBA season you only win 33 games. The 60% team would win 49 games. The 60 team would have had the #4 seed in the East in the NBA last season and #6 in the West. The year before 60% would have gotten you the #3 seed in the East and #5 in the West. The 40% team would have been in the middle of the lottery or lower.

If the #4 seed plays the the #10/11 seed, by definition, a win by the lower seed is a lonsghot.

I fully understand that you have two problems with admitting my premise is correct:

1. You and others have stridently taken a position and find it difficult to admit you are wrong after all of this.
2.. This is more important. You and others can't admit that RJ is right.
Click to expand...

Would you rather bet your life on a 38% 3 point shooter making a three or a team with a 40% chance of winning a game winning said game?
 
The three point shooter....but, of course, you changed 40% to 38%.
 
TownieDeac said:
Stats without context are meaningless

For example does the shooter have hot hand
Click to expand...

Or was he wearing plaid, having a beard, discussing esoteric foodie stuff, listening to "indie" music but afraid to call himself a hipster.
 
RJKarl said:
You missed the entire point of my original post that 40% without context is meaningless. That 40% can be good or 40% can be a longshot.

This is a perfect example. If you shoot 40% on threes for the season, you are above average and that shot is a good one to take.

If the 40% to win a game is accurate, over the space of an NBA season you only win 33 games. The 60% team would win 49 games. The 60 team would have had the #4 seed in the East in the NBA last season and #6 in the West. The year before 60% would have gotten you the #3 seed in the East and #5 in the West. The 40% team would have been in the middle of the lottery or lower.

If the #4 seed plays the the #10/11 seed, by definition, a win by the lower seed is a lonsghot.

I fully understand that you have two problems with admitting my premise is correct:

1. You and others have stridently taken a position and find it difficult to admit you are wrong after all of this.
2.. This is more important. You and others can't admit that RJ is right.
Click to expand...

it's amazing you can't find 1 person on this entire board that agrees with you even though you are so clearly right. if i was that persecuted on here i would quit.
 
RChildress107 said:
What "whole argument" against the Warriors? Where did I say their bench was weak? I would agree the strawman you seem to have built is dumb as hell.

The Warriors have had the greatest three year regular season run in league history. The 2016 team was not the best regular season team of all time.

And of course the Warriors have no control over who they play, but who they play still matters when discussing where they rank among the all time great teams. Their paths to the 15 and 17 championships were relatively easy.
Click to expand...

fair enough, you said if they had a downfall it would be their bench. they probably have the best bench in the league.

arguing about how good the warriors really are just feels like a 10x stupider version of the klay thompson argument from last season.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
fair enough, you said if they had a downfall it would be their bench. they probably have the best bench in the league.

arguing about how good the warriors really are just feels like a 10x stupider version of the klay thompson argument from last season.
Click to expand...

This is so NOT true. As of today, the Warriors have one of the weakest benches in the league. Now, I don't think that will be true come Game 69, but right now, they are offering almost nothing. This is where coaching come in. But there are about 20 teams in the league with a better bench today, including the Hawks.
 
lol one of their only competitors that could reasonably win the title is the rockets and they play 7 dudes. warriors have iggy and liv and crushed 2nd team units all last year.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
lol one of their only competitors that could reasonably win the title is the rockets and they play 7 dudes. warriors have iggy and liv and crushed 2nd team units all last year.
Click to expand...

Those are two tough match-ups. Iggy can still move, plays great D and is good on the break. Livingston is virtually uncoverable by PGs, especially second unit ones.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
it's amazing you can't find 1 person on this entire board that agrees with you even though you are so clearly right. if i was that persecuted on here i would quit.
Click to expand...

Not persecuted at all. I notice you can't dispute my points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top