2009/2010 NBA Thread

[JStarr]

Blake Griffin's done for the year. Are the Clippers completely cursed?

http://starr-rated.blogspot.com/2010/01/does-god-hate-clippers-owner-donald.html

Discuss.

[Gazz]

It could work in their favour, they have another shit year (If Griffin is as good as they say he is, they could of been in contention to sneak a playoff berth), get a decent number in the draft and have two good, young and hungry players to build a team around.

The more likely option is yes they are and we can look forward to another decade of lol, Clippers.

[gunnar hendershow]

The Clippers will finally improve when Bill Simmons finally gets so enraged since he's a season ticket holder to a team that sucks as opposed to his beloved Celts that he runs onto the court in the 3rd quarter of a blowout and kills Mike Dunleavy.

After that I'm expecting a Clippers dynasty to happen.

[Blaze09]

The Clippers will finally improve when Bill Simmons finally gets so enraged since he's a season ticket holder to a team that sucks as opposed to his beloved Celts that he runs onto the court in the 3rd quarter of a blowout and kills Mike Dunleavy.

After that I'm expecting a Clippers dynasty to happen.

You left out the part where he kills Sterling as well.

[JStarr]

The Clippers will finally improve when Bill Simmons finally gets so enraged since he's a season ticket holder to a team that sucks as opposed to his beloved Celts that he runs onto the court in the 3rd quarter of a blowout and kills Mike Dunleavy.

After that I'm expecting a Clippers dynasty to happen.

According to his "Open Letter to Blake Griffin" column, Simmons expected that to happen last month. Dunleavy's probably still operating under Threat Level Orange, though.

Very odd to see the Clippers hovering near .500, though. Sad for them that a .500 record would put them about 12th in the West, but 6th in the East.

I wouldn't complain a bit if the NBA went to a 16-best-records playoff system, instead of top 8 per conference. I understand the logistical issues with travel and such, but there's two or three teams in the West that just get hosed each season. We could see much better series, like possibly Cleveland v. New Orleans, instead of Cleveland v. Charlotte, for example.

Oh, and now J.A. Adande is campaigning to get LeBron to become a Clipper: http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/columns/story?id=4833489 Since, you know, everything needs to be concentrated in Los Angeles so Adande never has to go anywhere. Oy.

I do have to thank Adande for giving me hope that Phil Jackson might be reading my blog, though: http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/12335/phil-jackson-no-clipper-curse-just-donald-karma

[IzzyX]

The Clippers will finally improve when Bill Simmons finally gets so enraged since he's a season ticket holder to a team that sucks as opposed to his beloved Celts that he runs onto the court in the 3rd quarter of a blowout and kills Mike Dunleavy.

After that I'm expecting a Clippers dynasty to happen.

Oh, and now J.A. Adande is campaigning to get LeBron to become a Clipper: http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/columns/story?id=4833489 Since, you know, everything needs to be concentrated in Los Angeles so Adande never has to go anywhere. Oy.

If LeBron becomes a Clipper, I will laugh. And laugh some more. And then realize that it would make no difference to the Clippers whatsoever because they'll still suck.

[Colossus]

So, ESPN is saying that Amare will leave and go to Chicago, NJ, Philly, Miami, Wolves, Cavs and Warriors.

I would love to see him in Chicago, and just thinking of LeBron and Amare is scary...

[gunnar hendershow]

Amare is not a guy you want to make the focal point of your team. I like him in Chicago, Miami, and Cleveland for that reason. The Sixers already have 2 big wastes of money locked up for the next few years, so the notion that they'll feel they can add Amare to the mix strikes me as pretty silly.

[JStarr]

Anyone seen the brain dribbles of former NBA journeyman Paul Shirley? Basically, he says Haiti had a quake or two coming.

We really do need a facepalm smiley.

[JStarr]

Never thought I'd see somebody unhappy to escape the Clip Joint, but Marcus Camby's always been a little different.

And Donald Sterling once again has a GM pulling the ripcord, "preparing for next season." http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/columns/story?id=4919152 Al Thornton needs to watch his back now.

[Toe]

Having won 13 in a row, I think I like the Cavs the way they are. Chicago would be a great fit for Amare. They have enough defensive players to help cover for his weaknesses, and they could use a good scoring player to feed off of Rose.

[JStarr]

Don Nelson's passed Lenny Wilkens for the all-time wins record.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=300407016

Nellie's lasted as long as he has in as many jobs as he has, despite the fact that he's never even been to an NBA Finals.

Do you think coaches should get the same "Yeah, but..." treatment that the players get when they've never won a championship? And more specific, is Nellie a great coach, or just a guy who would jump at any job offer he got and stuck around long enough to win a ton of games?

I've never liked him personally, since his teams have never really been noted for any kind of defensive skill, they just seem to try to run teams out of the building. Run-TMC was fun to watch in the early '90s, but even they couldn't win any more than 44 games together.

[sahyder1]

I don't get the hatred for guys like Brown, Nelson, Wilkens who don't have the championships that Phil Jackson does. These guys took plenty of rebuilding jobs in their careers and still put up the wins.

[Trey]

With myself it's like a tier and the guys who have won everywhere they go and have won at least two titles are considered the elite and from there they range from great to worse, or hereby known as the Vinny Del Negro level. I don't like 95% of the coaches in the league really make two big of a difference though, other then Jackson and Pop (those are the only two I can think of off the top of my head) I think they are all fairly interchangeable.

[naiwf]

Do you think coaches should get the same "Yeah, but..." treatment that the players get when they've never won a championship? And more specific, is Nellie a great coach, or just a guy who would jump at any job offer he got and stuck around long enough to win a ton of games?

He's a mediocre coach simply because he doesn't coach defense. Yes, it's nice to watch teams score 100-110 every night (and much more back in the day), but that system doesn't work in the postseason. Nellie is basically a stat compiler. His career isn't as overrated as say Steve Nash's aka the only MVP in the history of the league to never play in the Finals AND as far as I know the only guy who won an MVP after his former team improved without him. However, I don't think Nelson makes his teams better. He plays a system that works well over the course of an 82 game grind when half the teams in the league are terrible. It just doesn't work in a best of 7 against the league's elite.

I'll take a guy with 400+ fewer regular season wins and at least 1 title over a guy like Nellie anyday.

[sahyder1]

Do you think coaches should get the same "Yeah, but..." treatment that the players get when they've never won a championship? And more specific, is Nellie a great coach, or just a guy who would jump at any job offer he got and stuck around long enough to win a ton of games?

He's a mediocre coach simply because he doesn't coach defense. Yes, it's nice to watch teams score 100-110 every night (and much more back in the day), but that system doesn't work in the postseason. Nellie is basically a stat compiler. His career isn't as overrated as say Steve Nash's aka the only MVP in the history of the league to never play in the Finals AND as far as I know the only guy who won an MVP after his former team improved without him. However, I don't think Nelson makes his teams better. He plays a system that works well over the course of an 82 game grind when half the teams in the league are terrible. It just doesn't work in a best of 7 against the league's elite.

I'll take a guy with 400+ fewer regular season wins and at least 1 title over a guy like Nellie anyday.

What does winning a title have to do with being MVP? Nash definitely deserved the MVP awards.

[naiwf]

Do you think coaches should get the same "Yeah, but..." treatment that the players get when they've never won a championship? And more specific, is Nellie a great coach, or just a guy who would jump at any job offer he got and stuck around long enough to win a ton of games?

He's a mediocre coach simply because he doesn't coach defense. Yes, it's nice to watch teams score 100-110 every night (and much more back in the day), but that system doesn't work in the postseason. Nellie is basically a stat compiler. His career isn't as overrated as say Steve Nash's aka the only MVP in the history of the league to never play in the Finals AND as far as I know the only guy who won an MVP after his former team improved without him. However, I don't think Nelson makes his teams better. He plays a system that works well over the course of an 82 game grind when half the teams in the league are terrible. It just doesn't work in a best of 7 against the league's elite.

I'll take a guy with 400+ fewer regular season wins and at least 1 title over a guy like Nellie anyday.

What does winning a title have to do with being MVP? Nash definitely deserved the MVP awards.

Who said anything about winning a title, Nash never got to the Finals. In the league's history he is the only player to win an MVP who hasn't done that.

The MVP generally is considered the best player in the league right? Nash was never the best player in the league. He won his first MVP with mediocre stats (15.5/3.3/11.5) because the Suns improved by more games than the Heat did with Shaq all while Dallas also improved without Nash. He won his second MVP because he had a better season than he did the year before, although Kobe and LeBron's numbers were insane that year (Nash 18.8/4.2/10.5, LeBron 31.4/7.0/6.6, Kobe 35.4/5.3/4.5). Even when his team got the # 1 seed in the playoffs they still never made it to the Finals. A back to back MVP has to get his team to the Finals at least once in his career.

Edited April 8, 2010 by naiwf

[sahyder1]

Do you think coaches should get the same "Yeah, but..." treatment that the players get when they've never won a championship? And more specific, is Nellie a great coach, or just a guy who would jump at any job offer he got and stuck around long enough to win a ton of games?

He's a mediocre coach simply because he doesn't coach defense. Yes, it's nice to watch teams score 100-110 every night (and much more back in the day), but that system doesn't work in the postseason. Nellie is basically a stat compiler. His career isn't as overrated as say Steve Nash's aka the only MVP in the history of the league to never play in the Finals AND as far as I know the only guy who won an MVP after his former team improved without him. However, I don't think Nelson makes his teams better. He plays a system that works well over the course of an 82 game grind when half the teams in the league are terrible. It just doesn't work in a best of 7 against the league's elite.

I'll take a guy with 400+ fewer regular season wins and at least 1 title over a guy like Nellie anyday.

What does winning a title have to do with being MVP? Nash definitely deserved the MVP awards.

Who said anything about winning a title, Nash never got to the Finals. In the league's history he is the only player to win an MVP who hasn't done that.

The MVP generally is considered the best player in the league right? Nash was never the best player in the league. He won his first MVP because the Suns improved by more games than the Heat did with Shaq all while Dallas also improved without Nash. He won his second MVP because he had a better season than he did the year before, although Kobe and LeBron's numbers were insane that year (Nash 18.8/4.2/10.5, LeBron 31.4/7.0/6.6, Kobe 35.4/5.3/4.5). Even when his team got the # 1 seed in the playoffs they still never made it to the Finals. A back to back MVP has to get his team to the Finals at least once in his career.

Yeah, I screwed up on the winning thing but that still doesn't change anything. Just because the voters have screwed up the award by giving it to the best player or the most popular player doesn't mean Nash didn't deserve it. It is not a team award. It is a regular season award. Mavericks made other moves that got them better. Nowitzki had another year under his belt too. It wasn't like they had the exact same team from the year before.

Edited April 8, 2010 by sahyder1

[naiwf]

The MVP generally is considered the best player in the league right? Nash was never the best player in the league. He won his first MVP because the Suns improved by more games than the Heat did with Shaq all while Dallas also improved without Nash. He won his second MVP because he had a better season than he did the year before, although Kobe and LeBron's numbers were insane that year (Nash 18.8/4.2/10.5, LeBron 31.4/7.0/6.6, Kobe 35.4/5.3/4.5). Even when his team got the # 1 seed in the playoffs they still never made it to the Finals. A back to back MVP has to get his team to the Finals at least once in his career.

Yeah, I screwed up on the winning thing but that still doesn't change anything. Just because the voters have screwed up the award by giving it to the best player or the most popular player doesn't mean Nash didn't deserve it. It is not a team award. It is a regular season award.

[sahyder1]

The MVP generally is considered the best player in the league right? Nash was never the best player in the league. He won his first MVP because the Suns improved by more games than the Heat did with Shaq all while Dallas also improved without Nash. He won his second MVP because he had a better season than he did the year before, although Kobe and LeBron's numbers were insane that year (Nash 18.8/4.2/10.5, LeBron 31.4/7.0/6.6, Kobe 35.4/5.3/4.5). Even when his team got the # 1 seed in the playoffs they still never made it to the Finals. A back to back MVP has to get his team to the Finals at least once in his career.

Yeah, I screwed up on the winning thing but that still doesn't change anything. Just because the voters have screwed up the award by giving it to the best player or the most popular player doesn't mean Nash didn't deserve it. It is not a team award. It is a regular season award.

How can you be the MVP when the playoff team you left got better without you? Can you picture any team losing an in their prime Jordan, Magic, Bird, Malone, AI, KG, Dirk, Kobe, LeBron etc improving without them?

How can you be the MVP again when two guys put up all time great seasons that dwarfed your numbers as an individual if it isn't a team award?

04-05, he took the Suns tobest record in the league. Yes, the Mavs improved but Nowitzki was better this year. They made other moves around him that got other pieces in there. There was a different coach and a different in place at the end of the season where the Mavs finished on a 16-2 or 18-2 run to finish the season. Again, hardly a knock on Nash.

Take a look at that 05-06 Suns. How many games would they have won without Nash? You want to talk about Kobe's great season, Nash beat him in the playoffs so yes his team went further since you want to use the team going far logic. Suns were a 2 seed in the West that year. Lakers were 7th. Cavs were a 4th seed in the East.

Edited April 8, 2010 by sahyder1