Around the NBA: February 2020

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I feel like you're redefining what the word "honesty" means to fit your argument. I've never seen it used in that manner, that a mistaken outcome is "dishonest."
Same could be said of you only taking the partial definition of integrity to mean honesty, when part of the definition is also morality.
They both called into question the “integrity” of the game by saying the refs altered who the winner should have been. Yeah sure theres a difference in what they said one was a blown call at the end, one was saying home cooking, but they were both in the end saying the refs changed the win / loss record of the teams involved.
 
I feel like you're redefining what the word "honesty" means to fit your argument. I've never seen it used in that manner, that a mistaken outcome is "dishonest."
That's a good point. Dame's tirade was about an actual injustice, something that was objectively a mistake on the official's part. So the NBA sort of grimaced but took the hit. It is our fault, they are saying. We admit it. Meanwhile Paul George, per usual, is just complaining, and worse, insinuating that the refs are somehow crooked and colluding. For some reason I didn't see the distinction before, but that makes a lot of sense. Honest mistake vs conspiracy. The NBA can accept the first, but the second is detrimental to the product.
 
That's a good point. Dame's tirade was about an actual injustice, something that was objectively a mistake on the official's part. So the NBA sort of grimaced but took the hit. It is our fault, they are saying. We admit it. Meanwhile Paul George, per usual, is just complaining, and worse, insinuating that the refs are somehow crooked and colluding. For some reason I didn't see the distinction before, but that makes a lot of sense. Honest mistake vs conspiracy. The NBA can accept the first, but the second is detrimental to the product.
Heres my question though, AFAIK the rules are about criticizing the refs. Not what justifications there are.

Draymond was fined for saying they needed new refs. That wasnt saying they were all corrupt or fixing games or home cooking. Is the line well if they actually make a mistake its ok to complain about it? Because that opens it up to players posting video of blown and bad calls that happen every game and complaining about it, is that what they want?

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id...ers-criticizing-refs-more-gestures-deterrents
 
Heres my question though, AFAIK the rules are about criticizing the refs. Not what justifications there are.

Draymond was fined for saying they needed new refs. That wasnt saying they were all corrupt or fixing games or home cooking. Is the line well if they actually make a mistake its ok to complain about it? Because that opens it up to players posting video of blown and bad calls that happen every game and complaining about it, is that what they want?

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id...ers-criticizing-refs-more-gestures-deterrents
It's doubtful that they want that, but it's arguable that it would be beneficial to the league to gradually move that direction. Nobody trusts an authoritarian regime that is completely incapable of handling criticism (think North Korea), which is the kind of culture David Stern basically created. But a league office that is willing to say "hey, we're not perfect, we're not immune to criticism, but at the very least we'll do our best to be fair, and our integrity is the one thing we'll defend insistently" is a lot more trustworthy, and it very well may be that that's the identity toward which Silver's NBA is attempting to migrate.
 
Heres my question though, AFAIk the rules are about criticizing the refs. Not what justifications there are.

Draymond was fined for saying they needed new refs. That wasnt saying they were all corrupt or fixing games or home cooking. Is the line well if they actually make a mistake its ok to complain about it? Because that opens it up to players posting video of blown and bad calls that happen every game and complaining about it, is that what they want?

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id...ers-criticizing-refs-more-gestures-deterrents
I'm with you. I am amongst those that thinks the NBA should have fined Dame. I think the NBA made a mistake not fining Dame. And I actually think Dame climbed up the proverbial cross expecting a fine...

But I also think, @Minstrel has tapped into the thought process of the NBA on this one. AND I think it has to do with Dame being Magical Dame. Draymond, Paul George, Chris Paul, Russ, these guys just complain and complain and complain. They've got no credibility. Dame is so pragmatic and grounded in the way he deals with things and I think the NBA knows that. They review film. They know Dame would get an A- in honesty at the very least.
 
It's doubtful that they want that, but it's arguable that it would be beneficial to the league to gradually move that direction. Nobody trusts an authoritarian regime that is completely incapable of handling criticism (think North Korea), which is the kind of culture David Stern basically created. But a league office that is willing to say "hey, we're not perfect, we're not immune to criticism, but at the very least we'll do our best to be fair" is a lot more trustworthy, and it very well may be that that's the identity toward which Silver's NBA is attempting to migrate.
I'd like to see an NBA where only coaches and captains talk to the refs. Every time I go to games (you don't see this on TV), I marvel at how much the players lobby the refs during timeout and breaks and every chance they get. Lobbying sucks in all industries.
 
I'm with you. I am amongst those that thinks the NBA should have fined Dame. I think the NBA made a mistake not fining Dame. And I actually think Dame climbed up the proverbial cross expecting a fine...

But I also think, @Minstrel has tapped into the thought process of the NBA on this one. AND I think it has to do with Dame being Magical Dame. Draymond, Paul George, Chris Paul, Russ, these guys just complain and complain and complain. They've got no credibility. Dame is so pragmatic and grounded in the way he deals with things and I think the NBA knows that. They review film. They know Dame would get an A- in honesty at the very least.
I think he is probably correct in the NBA’s thinking and how they processed that. Im sure the history of those guys played a role too. I just dont really like it and while I understand the distinction, man if I was a player I sure wouldnt like it. Whats the biggest thing players hate inconsistency, so lets now be inconsistent with the rules off the court too. I agree my guess is Dame himself thought a fine was coming.
 
I think he is probably correct in the NBA’s thinking and how they processed that. Im sure the history of those guys played a role too. I just dont really like it and while I understand the distinction, man if I was a player I sure wouldnt like it. Whats the biggest thing players hate inconsistency, so lets now he inconsistent with the rules off the court too. I agree my guess is Dame himself thought a fine was coming.
I totally agree. The ref/player overall relationship is terrible right now. That's why I'd like the coach/captain thing. Just to change the culture. It wasn't any better when they were T-ing guys up for nothing (remember that era? Fuck that.). Because, really, it is better for
both parties to be on the same team! The better the product, the more believable the product, the better it is for all involved.

I do think it needs to be recognized that the career of referee is dependent SOLELY on the talents of the players. Having an adversarial relationship is insane and self-defeating.

SOLUTION: NBA reviews all games. Takes notes on trickery and bad calls. Talks to teams privately but openly too about details: bad call here, flop here. No ref-shaming, no player-shaming. Nothing ever to hide. The refs should be here to make sure talents are on display. When Russ or whoever flops they should be saying in these meetings "we get you want to accentuate the foul, but the acting makes us skeptical, makes it hard to call because we want to be right." It's an honest discussion between adults. The idea would be to make Marcus Smart embarrassed to win the wrong way, condemned by the PLAYERS. I think parallel goals--best, most honest product possible--takes the NBA forward. Right now it's like the refs are bad cops when they should be pillars of integrity.
 
It's doubtful that they want that, but it's arguable that it would be beneficial to the league to gradually move that direction. Nobody trusts an authoritarian regime that is completely incapable of handling criticism (think Donald Trump), which is the kind of culture David Stern basically created. But a league office that is willing to say "hey, we're not perfect, we're not immune to criticism, but at the very least we'll do our best to be fair, and our integrity is the one thing we'll defend insistently" is a lot more trustworthy, and it very well may be that that's the identity toward which Silver's NBA is attempting to migrate.

fify
 
This popped into my head recently...

Without the stars to back him up and a crummy record, how irrelevant has Draymond Green been this year?

is it just me?
 
This popped into my head recently...

Without the stars to back him up and a crummy record, how irrelevant has Draymond Green been this year?

is it just me?

Green is a championship level complementary player. Maybe the best one in a real long time. Better than Tayshaun Prince certainly. Probably have to go all the way back to Dennis Rodman to find a role player with Green's level of impact
 
I firmly believe critical comments about the refs should be subject to the same rule as defamation: truth should be an absolute defense. If the call was wrong, a player or coach should not be fined for saying it was wrong. OTOH, don't accuse a ref of being on the take without proof.

For the record, I don't doubt that some refs are bent. (probably players as well) There is too much money in illegal gambling for corruption to be nonexistent!
 
Green is a championship level complementary player. Maybe the best one in a real long time. Better than Tayshaun Prince certainly. Probably have to go all the way back to Dennis Rodman to find a role player with Green's level of impact

Have you ever heard of Manu Ginobli?
 
Have you ever heard of Manu Ginobli?
I thought of him too, but he’s a weird case. Was he a legit star? He is one of the most decorated international players ever. He started sometimes, he was kind of a role player but kind of not. I can kinda see both sides to if he fits the criteria or not. Draymond and Rodman have much more similar games too.
 
Have you ever heard of Manu Ginobli?

I don't consider him a complementary player on those Spurs teams. Just as the Warriors had Curry-Durant-Klay, the Spurs had Duncan-Manu-Parker. He was part of their big-3 while they had guys like Bruce Bowen and Stephen Jackson in the supporting roles
 
I don't consider him a complementary player on those Spurs teams. Just as the Warriors had Curry-Durant-Klay, the Spurs had Duncan-Manu-Parker. He was part of their big-3 while they had guys like Bruce Bowen and Stephen Jackson in the supporting roles

Just because you definie it one way doesn't make it so. Green has been an all star 3 times in his 8 seasons and played over 30mpg in 5 of those seasons. Ginobli has only been an all star 2 times in his 16 seasons and averaged over 30mpg in only 2 of those seasons. Not sure how you can consider one a complimentary player and the other not. Durant only won one championship with GS and Green won 2 without Durant on the roster. Green was part of their "big 3" before Durant came along and was as important as Ginobli or Parker were to the Spurs.
 
Last edited:
Durant only won one championship with GS and Green won 2 without Durant on the roster.

Other way around. Green one won before Durant joined and the Warriors won two with Durant.

I mean, they should have won two with Green before Durant joined, but the 73-win season culminated in them being upset in the Finals by the Cavs when the Warriors had a lot of injuries (and Green got himself suspended for a game due to too many technicals, which was both stupid on his part and also highlighted his value as that loss turned the series).
 
Other way around. Green one won before Durant joined and the Warriors won two with Durant.

I mean, they should have won two with Green before Durant joined, but the 73-win season culminated in them being upset in the Finals by the Cavs when the Warriors had a lot of injuries (and Green got himself suspended for a game due to too many technicals, which was both stupid on his part and also highlighted his value as that loss turned the series).

ah well, close enough. :bgrin:
 
Just because you definie it one way doesn't make it so.

we're talking about subjective definitions of subjective notions about types of roles on a basketball team. It's all opinion, so when you say "it doesn't make it so" that seems a meaningless comment because there is no "so" anywhere around. There isn't any 'truth' to be found here floating in a sea of opinion

Green has been an akll star 3 times in his 8 seasons and played over 30mpg in 5 of those seasons. Ginobli has only been an all star 2 times in his 16 seasons and averaged over 30mpg in only 2 of those seasons. Not sure how you can consider one a complimentary player and the other not. Durant only won one championship with GS and Green won 2 without Durant on the roster. Green was part of their "big 3" before Durant came along and was as important as Ginobli or Parker were to the Spurs.

ok then the difference between a main player or a complementary player....IMO

I'd define a main player as one who can carry a team when the team is down or bad. Portland has maybe the worst team since Dame was a rookie, but he's putting up the best numbers of his career. His production and efficiency hasn't dropped. Dame is a core player, a main one

* Green has a career mark of .435 in FG% but he's shooting .388 this year, his worst mark in the last 7 years
* Green has a career mark of ..506 in 2ptFG% but he's shooting .457 this year, his worst mark in the last 6 years
* Green has a career mark of .320 in 3ptFG% but he's shooting .287 this year, his 2nd worst mark in the last 7 years
* Green has a career mark of .496 in eFG% but he's shooting .447 this year, his worst mark in the last 7 years
* Green has a career mark of .532 in TS% but he's shooting .491 this year, his worst mark in the last 7 years

* Green has a career PER of 15.1, but he's at 12.7 this year, his worst mark in the last 7 years
* Green has a career rebounding rate of 13.3%, but his rate is 11.7% this year, the worst mark of his career
* Green has a career mark of .132 in winshares/48, but he's at .048 this year, his worst mark in 7 years
* Green has a career BPM of +3.4, but he's at -0.6 this year, his worst in 7 years

the only area Green has maintained his norms is in assists, but that's generally a complementary skill

the difference between a main player and a complementary one shows up in comparing Dame and Green. Green is on a bad team this year and his numbers have cratered almost all the way across the board. Dame is on a bad team right now, but in all those categories where Green has collapsed, Dame is at career highs

so yeah, Green is a complementary player....IMO. That does not mean he wasn't essential to Warrior success. But that's why I said he was probably the best complementary players since Rodman
 
we're talking about subjective definitions of subjective notions about types of roles on a basketball team. It's all opinion, so when you say "it doesn't make it so" that seems a meaningless comment because there is no "so" anywhere around. There isn't any 'truth' to be found here floating in a sea of opinion
:smiley-klap1:
 
Generally it seems like whether a player is a "main player" or a "supporting/complementary player" in the eyes of fans is whether they're good at scoring. In some respects, that's fair--as a solo star, you can't carry a team very well if you can't lead them in scoring. In other respects, that's not so fair--championship teams (almost) never consist of a single star, so the real question is how much you drive success in an ecosystem of two or three stars. I think Green is a "main player" in the overall success of the Warriors' run. He basically does everything (at least prior to this year) except be a potent scorer and has been a huge part of the team's defense (as the effective quarterback and all-court defender) and offense (as a facilitator).

This season seems to illustrate that Green is a poor choice as a solo star, but I think he remains a true star when he has other scoring stars on the team.
 
Generally it seems like whether a player is a "main player" or a "supporting/complementary player" in the eyes of fans is whether they're good at scoring. In some respects, that's fair--as a solo star, you can't carry a team very well if you can't lead them in scoring. In other respects, that's not so fair--championship teams (almost) never consist of a single star, so the real question is how much you drive success in an ecosystem of two or three stars. I think Green is a "main player" in the overall success of the Warriors' run. He basically does everything (at least prior to this year) except be a potent scorer and has been a huge part of the team's defense (as the effective quarterback and all-court defender) and offense (as a facilitator).

This season seems to illustrate that Green is a poor choice as a solo star, but I think he remains a true star when he has other scoring stars on the team.
I kind of see the distinction as could this player carry a team without the other stars for like half a season. Scoring plays a part in that no doubt. Thats where Im torn with ginobili we never really saw him without Timmy and Parker, I think he could carry an NBA team for a while. By carry I mean keep them around 500 with subpar talent.
Rodman and Draymond I dont think they can, their skills are so dependent on others (that’s not trying to diminish their talent and how important those type of guys are.
Sorry I am making no sense right now, which is normal I guess heh. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top