Golden State Warriors Message Board - NBA Basketball Discussion Forum • View topic

All Star

Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0

Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 4:59 pm

#32 wrote:I wouldn't call my numbers for Marion a sharp decline. You gotta believe he probably wont average 12 boards next season... and his drop in points purely comes from the idea of getting less shots on a more capable team (ie, if he was traded to the Pistons or Cav's, who have more scoring options).

First of all, nobody has more scoring options than the suns.

Second of all, I said he'd average "a few points less and 2-4 rebounds less". You said he'd average 16 points (a few less) and 10 rebounds (2-4 less). It looks like we're pretty much in agreement

Top

Hall of Famer

Posts: 20885
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 21

Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 6:22 pm

Truth is that the Suns have more talent than the Jazz did but it is not by a whole lot.

Nash is at least in the status of Sotckton for what he has done the last two seasons and, for me, this season's performance puts him in a level of his own. The Suns were looking like they were going to have a hard season with Amare injured, JJ and QRich gone and replaced by lesser players but the Suns did great and Nash is #1 reason for that

migya make the ring fall on ya

Top

All Star

Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0

Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 6:33 pm

I don't agree that the suns have more talent than the jazz. Malone is better than Marion. Bell is like bryon russell's doppelganger, Hornacek is better than Jones. Diaw is better than Ostertag but you can't really compare because Diaw isn't a true center. Nobody else on either team is good enough to really change the equation. With a healthy amare the suns are more talented but with a healthy amare they will win the championship

Top

Hall of Famer

Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -3

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 2:57 am

tHe_dIsEaSe wrote: With a healthy amare the suns are more talented but with a healthy amare they will win the championship

I don't think so. Without a defense, I don't think they would be able to go past Dallas or Detroit. It's just a matter of opinion, tho.

migya wrote:Nash is at least in the status of Sotckton for what he has done the last two seasons

And I also can't agree with this. But just because Stockton was a great defender (although somewhat dirty), and Nash is... well, Nash doesn't exist when it comes to defense.

Top

Hall of Famer

Posts: 12975
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 41

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 8:37 am

TMC wrote:
tHe_dIsEaSe wrote: With a healthy amare the suns are more talented but with a healthy amare they will win the championship

I don't think so. Without a defense, I don't think they would be able to go past Dallas or Detroit. It's just a matter of opinion, tho.

migya wrote:Nash is at least in the status of Sotckton for what he has done the last two seasons

And I also can't agree with this. But just because Stockton was a great defender (although somewhat dirty), and Nash is... well, Nash doesn't exist when it comes to defense.

Agree with TMC on both accounts.

GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD

Top

All Star

Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 1:11 pm

#32 wrote:
TMC wrote:
tHe_dIsEaSe wrote: With a healthy amare the suns are more talented but with a healthy amare they will win the championship

I don't think so. Without a defense, I don't think they would be able to go past Dallas or Detroit. It's just a matter of opinion, tho.

migya wrote:Nash is at least in the status of Sotckton for what he has done the last two seasons

And I also can't agree with this. But just because Stockton was a great defender (although somewhat dirty), and Nash is... well, Nash doesn't exist when it comes to defense.

Agree with TMC on both accounts.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. A team with a lineup of:
Nash
Bell
Marion
Diaw
Amare
with a bench of: Tim Thomas, House, Jones, Barbosa, Kurt Thomas

Would not only have depth unparralelled in the annals of NBA history but would also have two MVP candidates and another superstar in their starting lineup that would be one of the two or three best in the league. Amare would solve the rebounding problem to some degree as well as the height problem. I don't see how this team wouldn't win well over 65 games if they were healthy. I could see this team averaging about 115 ppg and allowing "only" 100.

Top

TMC TMC's Profile Hall of Famer Posts: 18461 Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am Location: Somewhere in this site... Poster Credit: -3	Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 1:31 pm They had (arguably) a better team last year (a healthy Amare, Q, JJ, Jimmy Jackson), and still weren't able to reach the finals. In fact, the Spurs had more problems with Seattle than with Phoenix last year.
Top

32 32's Profile Hall of Famer Posts: 12975 Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm Location: Golden State Poster Credit: 41	Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 3:10 pm A team that doesn't play defense can't win it all. It's that simple. Phoenix may win 60+ games a year, but they'll never EVER win an NBA Finals trophy unless they solve their defensive liabilities. GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Top

All Star

Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 3:48 pm

TMC wrote:They had (arguably) a better team last year (a healthy Amare, Q, JJ, Jimmy Jackson), and still weren't able to reach the finals. In fact, the Spurs had more problems with Seattle than with Phoenix last year.

Are you f***ing kidding me? Diaw isn't much worse than jj2 was last year and jimmy jackson wouldn't be one of their best nine players. Quentin just lucked out but he wasn't any better for the system than at least six or seven guys. If I take a page from your (or 32's, I forget who) book and rank the guys on the two teams (obviously by value, not "bestness"), it looks like this

Nash
Amare
Marion
JJ2
Diaw
Bell
James Jones
Barbosa
Tim Thomas
Kurt Thomas
Quenton Richardson
Eddie House
Jim Jackson

Take Nash, amare, and marion out of the equation because they're on both teams and you see that, though JJ2 is better than diaw by a narrow margin, the 07 phoenix squad is much better.

And you also forget that the reason that phoenix series was five games instead of seven was joe johnson's injury though SAS still probably would have prevailed in the end.

Top

All Star

Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 3:50 pm

#32 wrote:A team that doesn't play defense can't win it all. It's that simple.

Phoenix may win 60+ games a year, but they'll never EVER win an NBA Finals trophy unless they solve their defensive liabilities.

They actually play the second best defense in the league per possesion. It appears that they play bad defense because they give up a lot of points, but that's becuase there are way more possesions and therefore way more scoring oppurtunities.

Top

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE tHe_pEsTiLeNcE's Profile tHe_pEsTiLeNcE's Website All Star Posts: 2558 Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am Location: where you aren't Poster Credit: 0	Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 3:55 pm Phoenix is like teams from the 80s and earlier; they play good defense but allow a lot of points because they play with so many more possesions.
Top

Hall of Famer

Posts: 12975
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 41

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 3:56 pm

Statistically, sure. But it's all a bunch of risky lane-jumping. There's a reason Phoenix' opposition averages so many points. It's the same reason so many people have career nights against the Suns. They don't play good real defense.

They get a lot of steals, sure. But they also allow many open paths to the bucket, they jump in front of their men (and that often leads to numbers on the other side of the floor), they don't cause their opponents to shoot a poor percentage (which is the surest sign of tough, man-to-man defense), and they allow a ton of points per night. I've seen the Suns play defense. It's not pretty. Flashy, sure. But not the way you (as a team) want it.

GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD

Top

Hall of Famer

Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -3

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 12:32 am

#32 wrote:Statistically, sure. But it's all a bunch of risky lane-jumping. There's a reason Phoenix' opposition averages so many points. It's the same reason so many people have career nights against the Suns. They don't play good real defense.

They get a lot of steals, sure. But they also allow many open paths to the bucket, they jump in front of their men (and that often leads to numbers on the other side of the floor), they don't cause their opponents to shoot a poor percentage (which is the surest sign of tough, man-to-man defense), and they allow a ton of points per night. I've seen the Suns play defense. It's not pretty. Flashy, sure. But not the way you (as a team) want it.

Well done. Saved me the time to write it.

Top

All Star

Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 7:02 am

#32 wrote:Statistically, sure. But it's all a bunch of risky lane-jumping. There's a reason Phoenix' opposition averages so many points. It's the same reason so many people have career nights against the Suns. They don't play good real defense.

They get a lot of steals, sure. But they also allow many open paths to the bucket, they jump in front of their men (and that often leads to numbers on the other side of the floor), they don't cause their opponents to shoot a poor percentage (which is the surest sign of tough, man-to-man defense), and they allow a ton of points per night. I've seen the Suns play defense. It's not pretty. Flashy, sure. But not the way you (as a team) want it.

My point is that I'd rather score 115 and give up 105 than score 95 and give up 90. I don't subscribe to the old indiana republican hick saying "defense wins championships". I think that whoever has more points at the end of the game will win and if they keep everybody and return amare, they should have more points at the end of about 70 regular season games and 16 playoff ones. Care to explain the reasoning behind defense wins championships? Becuase the last time I checked there is no rule against a finals game being 120-116.

And tas I said earlier 60s-80s teams played defense the exact same say as the suns.

Top

Hall of Famer

Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -3

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 7:55 am

Well, if you give up 100+ points in each game, and you have a bad offensive game, chances are you're going to lose that game, while, on lower figures, you'll have a chance to win it.

The point is that the more points you allow, the more forced you're to outscore rivals, so a bad outing means you've lost more times than in a low scoring game.

Of course, a team that scores 110 and allows 100 plays a prettier game to watch for fans, but not as effective as a team that scores 90 and allows 80. You're not relying so much on the shots falling.

Top

MVP

Who is online