General NBA thread

[ET21]

What a boring Finals, guess it follows the theme of the overall playoffs

[NWI_Irish96]

What a boring Finals, guess it follows the theme of the overall playoffs

I pay almost no attention to the NBA, but with Brad Stevens being from Indiana, it interests me a little bit.

[jgb191]

Today marks the 20th anniversary of one of the most memorable, emotional, and exciting playoff games in NBA history.  Game Seven of the de facto 2002 NBA Finals between LA Lakers at Sacramento Kings game was played on this date exactly two decades ago.  I was rooting for Sacramento to win their first championship in their city's history, and I think most of the country outside California was too.  As I remember it, of the twenty-something people at my sports bar watching it along with me that evening, only a handful were Lakers fans.  It was so heartbreaking to see the Kings come so close to winning the 2002 Championship only to fall short on a number of occasions.  I really thought the Kings were the better team than the Lakers; but officiating in Game 6 and self-destruction in Game 7 saved the Lakers.  And let's not forget Robert Horry's Game 4-winning buzzer-beater three-pointer that also saved the Lakers.

The only other time I was that heartbroken for a city and a team was watching Stockton and Malone fall short of the 1998 Championship, I nearly teared up watching their post-game interview after having worked so hard for so many years together.  I was really hopeful that 1998 would be the Jazz's year.

[Henry]

The only other time I was that heartbroken for a city and a team was watching Stockton and Malone fall short of the 1998 Championship, I nearly teared up watching their post-game interview after having worked so hard for so many years together.  I was really hopeful that 1998 would be the Jazz's year.

That, plus the 1997 championship, was won by the Bulls at the Jazz's expense. In addition, Utah was the only repeat opponent in Chicago's six-title run, coming at the very end of said run.

[Ted$8roadFan]

The Celtics took Game 1. A complete team effort.

[Henry]

Well, now the Warriors have tied it up with a vintage blowout performance in Game 2. And with that, it's on to Boston...

[Ted$8roadFan]

Celtics won last night and have taken a 2-1 lead.

[stlukeyo7]

still shocked at this from the lack of creativity in qtrs 1 2 and 4 from golden state to foul calling. curry was fouled a ton with no FT's

[plain]

Celtics may very well take it after what we saw last night. Between Curry's potential injury and Green's continued foul troubles it's not looking so good for the Warriors.

[SectorZ]

What a time for me to lose complete interest in basketball being from Massachusetts. My loss I guess.

[The Ghostbuster]

The Celtics have fallen behind the Warriors 3 games to 2. I believe Boston is finished. Also, there is nothing I find more annoying than Golden State fans chanting "WARRIORS! WARRIORS! WARRIORS!"  If I never hear that obnoxious chant again (and I know I will), it will be too soon.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Celtics have fallen behind the Warriors 3 games to 2. I believe Boston is finished. Also, there is nothing I find more annoying than Golden State fans chanting "WARRIORS! WARRIORS! WARRIORS!"  If I never hear that obnoxious chant again (and I know I will), it will be too soon.

This is what it ought to be:

[The Ghostbuster]

What movie is that from?

[Max Rockatansky]

What movie is that from?

The Warriors

[Big John]

The Celtics have fallen behind the Warriors 3 games to 2. I believe Boston is finished. Also, there is nothing I find more annoying than Golden State fans chanting "WARRIORS! WARRIORS! WARRIORS!"  If I never hear that obnoxious chant again (and I know I will), it will be too soon.

Are you glad Marquette University changed their name?

[Ted$8roadFan]

What movie is that from?

The Warriors. 1979. Cult classic.

[Stephane Dumas]

While we're at it, we could sing the song "The Warrior" by a rock band named Scandal who was a one-hit wonder in 1984.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47y5bo8wtqM

[jgb191]

I would have no problem if the NBA renamed its Championship trophy after Steve Kerr, who just won his ninth, say it again 9th, NBA title tonight with 103-90 victory at Boston in Game Six.  5 (as a player) + 4 (as head coach) = 9 championship trophies....surpassed only by a very few.

And no matter what people say, coaches never get enough credit for the team winning it all.  It is immensely difficult to coach a team of superstars.  With talent and fame comes seemingly immoveable ego, which is tough for any coach to deal with, but the right coach will gain the attention, trust, and loyalty of the players.  As long as you gain the support of your players, the probability is more favorable of the coaches job security, even more so than wins and losses.  During these last couple of years, the players or management could have easily had the temptation to change coaches when things went south like many others organizations have done (some of those for the worse); so a credit to Steve Kerr getting his players and personnel to keep believing in him.

I see nothing wrong with the late Jerry Krause's infamously misquoted statement saying "Organizations (as a whole) win championships."  His statement mutually included players along with the ownership, executives, management, coaches, players, and trainers.  It's the type of culture implemented by the higher-up personnel that drives it all.

[Scott5114]

stagnant

[Ted$8roadFan]

Congratulations to the Warriors. They were the better team, especially since Steph's transcendent Game 4 performance. Thanks to the Celtics for a great season.

[Henry]

And the dynasty continues...four titles in eight years!

I don't see anyone comparing Curry to Jordan, though. It wouldn't surprise me one bit, since Steve Kerr played with one and coached the other, and I'd love to hear his thoughts on it. Not to mention that #30 is finally the series MVP.

[skluth]

I would have no problem if the NBA renamed its Championship trophy after Steve Kerr, who just won his ninth, say it again 9th, NBA title tonight with 103-90 victory at Boston in Game Six.  5 (as a player) + 4 (as head coach) = 9 championship trophies....surpassed only by a very few.

Bill Russell had 11 championships as a player and two more as coach. 13>9. I like Kerr, but Russell has a better legacy and his name is on the Finals MVP award. I think it should be named after Phil Jackson, a player on two championships and coach for 11, if it were renamed. That's also 13 championships total. Jackson coached six consecutive champions with two different teams (there is a gap of one year when he wasn't coaching), three each with the Bulls and Lakers; nobody has ever done that in any major sport. I know of no awards named for Jackson.

Steve Kerr is a fine person and a great coach. I'd say Jackson would be more deserving of the honor if the trophy were renamed, but I don't think it should be renamed at all given Larry O'Brien's legacy as league commissioner.

[Rothman]

And the dynasty continues...four titles in eight years!

I don't see anyone comparing Curry to Jordan, though. It wouldn't surprise me one bit, since Steve Kerr played with one and coached the other, and I'd love to hear his thoughts on it. Not to mention that #30 is finally the series MVP.

Curry and Jordan are two very different players.  Comparison is pretty useless due to the difference in position and style.

[jgb191]

And the dynasty continues...four titles in eight years!

I don't see anyone comparing Curry to Jordan, though. It wouldn't surprise me one bit, since Steve Kerr played with one and coached the other, and I'd love to hear his thoughts on it. Not to mention that #30 is finally the series MVP.

Curry and Jordan are two very different players.  Comparison is pretty useless due to the difference in position and style.

It also goes back to what I had posted earlier:  Curry's Warriors have the advantage of the current style of basketball with less emphasis on defense, less physical game, plus the benefit of the latest and greatest sports medicine and therapy.  Players in the 1990s didn't have today's technology of sports science, played in a more physical game, and defense was paramount in winning a championship back then.  As far as which era had tougher competition, it's very much debatable, but my opinion is that Jordan faced tougher obstacles than Curry did.  Therein lies my point:  While this year's Warriors I believe might have had a chance to make the playoffs in the 1990's, I just not convinced they would have been a championship contender in that era with their "live-by-the-three" game plan; I don't think it would have worked in that era, and if you were old enough to remember the 1990s then you would more likely agree with me.  These young fans born in this century would not know what the game was like back then.

[gr8daynegb]

And the dynasty continues...four titles in eight years!

I don't see anyone comparing Curry to Jordan, though. It wouldn't surprise me one bit, since Steve Kerr played with one and coached the other, and I'd love to hear his thoughts on it. Not to mention that #30 is finally the series MVP.

Curry and Jordan are two very different players.  Comparison is pretty useless due to the difference in position and style.

It also goes back to what I had posted earlier:  Curry's Warriors have the advantage of the current style of basketball with less emphasis on defense, less physical game, plus the benefit of the latest and greatest sports medicine and therapy.  Players in the 1990s didn't have today's technology of sports science, played in a more physical game, and defense was paramount in winning a championship back then.  As far as which era had tougher competition, it's very much debatable, but my opinion is that Jordan faced tougher obstacles than Curry did.  Therein lies my point:  While this year's Warriors I believe might have had a chance to make the playoffs in the 1990's, I just not convinced they would have been a championship contender in that era with their "live-by-the-three" game plan; I don't think it would have worked in that era, and if you were old enough to remember the 1990s then you would more likely agree with me.  These young fans born in this century would not know what the game was like back then.

I'm just imagining how many delays we'd have in the 1980s and 1990s for reviewing if fouls should be flagrant 1 or 2.......many flagrant 1 and 2 fouls today were common fouls without argument in the 80s/90s