Game Thread: Warriors @ Brooklyn Nets 2012-12-07

Talk about the upcoming Warriors game here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes


All Star
Posts: 1078
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:45 am
Location: Union City, CA
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:24 pm
Golden State Warriors (11 - 7) @ Brooklyn Nets (11 - 6)

Start time: 4:30 PM PST @ Barclays Center
Local TV: CSN Bay Area
Nat TV: None

Probable starters for the Golden State Warriors:
ImageImageImageImageImage
C - Festus Ezeli
PF - David Lee
SF - Harrison Barnes
SG - Klay Thompson
PG - Stephen Curry

Probable starters for the Brooklyn Nets:
ImageImageImageImageImage
C - Andray Blatche
PF - Kris Humphries
SF - Gerald Wallace
SG - Joe Johnson
PG - Deron Williams
I've been a Warriors fan since they traded Chris Webber. Can you imagine how that's like....

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:10 am
I am projecting a close game. Could be a win, could be a loss.

It's 50/50 basically.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21382
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:04 am
Really could use Ezeli playing well, getting more minutes and defending the inside well. The team will have to shoot well.
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya

All Star
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:40 pm
Location: lithuania, gargzdai
Poster Credit: 10
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:08 pm
no lopez for brooklyn.
gotta do this!
"i wish i was a little bit taller" skee lo
User avatar
Moderator
Posts: 2570
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Eureka, CA - Humboldt
Poster Credit: 19
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:25 pm
martin wrote:no lopez for brooklyn.
gotta do this!

Yeah, we need to capitalize on situations like this.

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:38 pm
I am going to be a little money on the Nets.

So if I lose, it's like I paid to see the Warriors win.

All Star
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:40 pm
Location: lithuania, gargzdai
Poster Credit: 10
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:12 am
Blackfoot wrote:I am going to be a little money on the Nets.

So if I lose, it's like I paid to see the Warriors win.


I think it's a bit of a twisted logic you are on here - you bet for brooklyn to win, so if they win - you get what you your money back. But if warriors win, you lose what you paid for. You simply now a are paying to see the game. And you are paying with marginal returns - if broolyn wins, you don't get back nothing much. And it's bittersweet money. Now if you pay the same amount for warriors win, you get doubly rewarded (seeing that the money line on the game is frankly ridiculous, no way brooklyn without lopez is 70-30 favourites) - you get your money tripled and you get a satisfaction of seeing them win.
"i wish i was a little bit taller" skee lo

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:23 am
Nah, I am paying to see them win.

And, frankly, at home they are. Brook is a good player, but due to his soft rebounding and bad defense his offensive abilities are minimum because, well, he can't rebound or defend very well.

All Star
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:40 pm
Location: lithuania, gargzdai
Poster Credit: 10
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:48 pm
so you put money on nets, thinking they (nets) will win. warriors lose, you win change.
if you put money on warriors, thinking they will win, but they lose, then you would have payed to see warriors play and saved your moral integrity.
if you put money on warriors and warriors win, but you thought nets would win, you won triple the money and been surprised.
never bet against your own team - my rule as a fan.
my rule as bet junkie - if you don't think your team can win or cover the spread, don't bet on that game.

i hope warriors come out gunning and blow this overhyped team out, like the ny did yesterday to miami. we have better shooters, better pfs and a pg who is on a roll.
the only advantage for the nets is homecourt and sf position, but barnes seem to have been able to sweep most predictions under the rug.
if ezeli/biedrins can contain blatche to start the game and curry/thompson hit some early threes i see avery johnson going small. lee seems to have been able to contain kris kardashian last time and own him on offense. i don't think landry will be overplayed by teletovic.
If we dictate the tempo and push the ball we have all the chances in the world. Certainly nothing so low as 30-70. More like 48-52.
So, if i bet on warriors, but they lose, i have payed to see them win, but they simply lost.
"i wish i was a little bit taller" skee lo
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21382
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:05 pm
JREED wrote:
martin wrote:no lopez for brooklyn.
gotta do this!

Yeah, we need to capitalize on situations like this.



Certainly the team needs to win this one then, as the Nets only seem to have Deron, JJ and GWall other then Lopez.
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:13 pm
martin wrote:so you put money on nets, thinking they (nets) will win. warriors lose, you win change.
if you put money on warriors, thinking they will win, but they lose, then you would have payed to see warriors play and saved your moral integrity.
if you put money on warriors and warriors win, but you thought nets would win, you won triple the money and been surprised.
never bet against your own team - my rule as a fan.
my rule as bet junkie - if you don't think your team can win or cover the spread, don't bet on that game.

i hope warriors come out gunning and blow this overhyped team out, like the ny did yesterday to miami. we have better shooters, better pfs and a pg who is on a roll.
the only advantage for the nets is homecourt and sf position, but barnes seem to have been able to sweep most predictions under the rug.
if ezeli/biedrins can contain blatche to start the game and curry/thompson hit some early threes i see avery johnson going small. lee seems to have been able to contain kris kardashian last time and own him on offense. i don't think landry will be overplayed by teletovic.
If we dictate the tempo and push the ball we have all the chances in the world. Certainly nothing so low as 30-70. More like 48-52.
So, if i bet on warriors, but they lose, i have payed to see them win, but they simply lost.



No need to complicate it.

Pay to see them win.

If they lose I get extra cash.

I do think the Nets will cover the -6, though. And I am a betting junkie too.

All Star
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:40 pm
Location: lithuania, gargzdai
Poster Credit: 10
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:42 pm
Blackfoot wrote:
martin wrote:so you put money on nets, thinking they (nets) will win. warriors lose, you win change.
if you put money on warriors, thinking they will win, but they lose, then you would have payed to see warriors play and saved your moral integrity.
if you put money on warriors and warriors win, but you thought nets would win, you won triple the money and been surprised.
never bet against your own team - my rule as a fan.
my rule as bet junkie - if you don't think your team can win or cover the spread, don't bet on that game.

i hope warriors come out gunning and blow this overhyped team out, like the ny did yesterday to miami. we have better shooters, better pfs and a pg who is on a roll.
the only advantage for the nets is homecourt and sf position, but barnes seem to have been able to sweep most predictions under the rug.
if ezeli/biedrins can contain blatche to start the game and curry/thompson hit some early threes i see avery johnson going small. lee seems to have been able to contain kris kardashian last time and own him on offense. i don't think landry will be overplayed by teletovic.
If we dictate the tempo and push the ball we have all the chances in the world. Certainly nothing so low as 30-70. More like 48-52.
So, if i bet on warriors, but they lose, i have payed to see them win, but they simply lost.



No need to complicate it.

Pay to see them win.

If they lose I get extra cash.

I do think the Nets will cover the -6, though. And I am a betting junkie too.


Ok, just for the sake of not betting against your team. Do you think the warriors won't cover + 12,5? It's 1.35 line for this - same as for the nets win. For that not to happen it would have to pretty much be a blowout game. Do you think we are that bad?
So you take the warriors on this one, you still root for them, and if they play a good game, but lose, you still get the money, except betting for the warriors :)
The money line on nets is just very low. And if we can beat clippers at their court, I assume we have a good chance of hanging in with nets.
"i wish i was a little bit taller" skee lo
User avatar
Moderator
Posts: 2570
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Eureka, CA - Humboldt
Poster Credit: 19
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:09 pm
migya wrote:
JREED wrote:
martin wrote:no lopez for brooklyn.
gotta do this!

Yeah, we need to capitalize on situations like this.



Certainly the team needs to win this one then, as the Nets only seem to have Deron, JJ and GWall other then Lopez.

Curry and Thompson can neutralize dwill and Johnson in pts, Wallace > Barnes, but our advantage comes from Lee. We need to make the best of games against teams missing key bigs while ours is out. Or we could just recognize that they are the better team and elect to to not play the game... no wait, stern wouldn't have that... never said it was going to be easy, but without Lopez this game is more winnable.

All Star
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 17
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:20 pm
Nets have been playing well lately, should be a challenging game. I remember the first game they had us in the first half, but we came back the 2nd half and blew them away.

Its been mentioned many times but the warriors always seem to start slow.

All Star
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:40 pm
Location: lithuania, gargzdai
Poster Credit: 10
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:31 pm
warriorsstepup wrote:Nets have been playing well lately, should be a challenging game. I remember the first game they had us in the first half, but we came back the 2nd half and blew them away.

Its been mentioned many times but the warriors always seem to start slow.


Detroit game's start was very good (as well as third quarter) pushing the ball, getting open shots, taking shots in transition, letting curry shoot stepping into the point while coming down court. And high picks as well. Our shooters, curry and thompson are much better suited to shoot off the high picks than just keep runing through multiple screens. For one, their feet are better set because they don't have to turn around coming of screens and thus win extra time to have their bodies prepared for shot. Plus, they get less tired, and can play better defense and log more minutes. And there's nothing like seeing couple of balls thread the net for a shooter. Hopefully this becomes the trend.
"i wish i was a little bit taller" skee lo
Next

Return to Game Threads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests