NBA Playoffs Thread - Play-in and 1st round edition

[Chris Craig]

I actually said just the opposite of what you're attributing to me. I said you can feel about her and her announcing however you want, but, objectively, she is not good.

I stated opinion but I also backed it up with fact.

What you do or don't appreciate about my posting is irrelevant. I don't believe I quoted you when I made my post about Burke. You inserted yourself in defending her. I explained why that had no bearing on her being objectively poor at her job and that your liking her was your own business but had no objective bearing on whether she was a good announcer or not. I don't know if you're her dad or what, but you keep coming back with the same stuff.

I guess I could say I don't appreciate being questioned about my opinion by a random poster with an opinion who I wasn't talking to, but that'd be equivalent to what you're doing. You think I'm being condescending and pretentious, well, I guess it's OK if I say this then: Come with better takes and read the posts to which you're responding more thoroughly; sometimes what you see as being condescended to is actually you not taking care of your own end of the discussion.

There is subjective truth (perception) and objective truth (facts). Subjectively some like her as a commentor and some do not. Some think she is good at her job and others do not.

The facts are (objectively) she is proficient enough at her job to work for the NBA and call NBA games.

 

[THE HCP]

There is subjective truth (perception) and objective truth (facts). Subjectively some like her as a commentor and some do not. Some think she is good at her job and others do not.

The facts are she is proficient enough at her job to work for the NBA and call NBA games.

I'm not in this fight, but trust me when I tell you there are people who work in broadcasting the NBA who are shit at their jobs. It's who you know like every other thing in this world.

 

[PCmor7]

Where's the lie? Brooks is a good defender, but he is ass as a shooter and isn't particularly athletic.

On what are you basing "he isn't particularly athletic"? If he's a good defender, like you say, and he's guarding some of the best players and most athletic players the Lakers have, doesn't it stand to reason that he must be somewhat athletic?

Not a good shooter? Geez, the guy shot 79.5% from the line this year and it was his worst percentage in four years. He hasn't shot well from 3 the last two years, but in the previous four years he was 34.4, 35.8, 37.5 and 35.6, which is pretty much league average.

Objectively, your assessment seems off.

Of course, that doesn't even need to really be addressed, because what exactly brings an impartial analyst to discuss a player in this manner in the first place? Is Brooks an underperforming star? How often have you heard another color analyst point out so boldly the shortcomings of a certain player, not just saying he wasn't playing well, but that he was poor in these areas?

What exactly happened that brought Brooks to be such a center of attention and get such a bad review? For bonus points, who are some of the players Burke consistently lauds and with whom seldom expresses fault?

 

[PCmor7]

There is subjective truth (perception) and objective truth (facts). Subjectively some like her as a commentor and some do not. Some think she is good at her job and others do not.

The facts are (objectively) she is proficient enough at her job to work for the NBA and call NBA games.

Does that mean all S2 mods are created equal because they've all been proficient enough at moderation to become S2 mods?

You know what I mean here. Getting a job, holding a job, and being good at a job aren't all the same thing.

 

[Chris Craig]

I'm not in this fight, but trust me when I tell you there are people who work in broadcasting the NBA who are shit at their jobs. It's who you know like every other thing in this world.

Sure. But, to last as long as someone like Doris Burke has, you have to be somewhat adept at the job. I'm no fan of hers, but that's really subjective because others are.

 

[Chris Craig]

Does that mean all S2 mods are created equal because they've all been proficient enough at moderation to become S2 mods?

You know what I mean here. Getting a job, holding a job, and being good at a job aren't all the same thing.

You don't think all us mods are good at modding? I could offer my opinion on the mods, but it would be subjective because that's my thought and will not be shared by everyone.

Sure, but to hold a job for as much time as Doris has, she has to be somewhat good at it. There are a lot of commentators who aren't good at it, and they don't generally last.

 

[PCmor7]

You are acting like you and you alone get to decide what the objective truth is. It is a logical fallacy. Your argument has no merit.

This is just ridiculous. I gave my opinion and I gave what she said and I explained why the way she performed would be considered unprofessional. To somehow say that's not objective is mindboggling.

If I were to say Player A was a poor shooter because he consistently shot below league averages and he wasn't a player I had any particular interest in, how would it not be objective? If you came back and said he's a good shooter because you liked him, how is that objective?

That's what you're doing.

Maybe this is a better question for you. Even though I've pointed out things Burke does that aren't what a good analyst would do, for me to be subjective about this would mean I have a personal dislike of her. Why would I personally dislike her? I don't know her. It's her performance that's not very good. As I said earlier, she might be a wonderful person, but that has nothing to do with how she calls basketball games.

 

[PCmor7]

Sure, but to hold a job for as much time as Doris has, she has to be somewhat good at it. There are a lot of commentators who aren't good at it, and they don't generally last.

Not necessarily. It really depends on what the people above her paygrade want, and that could be based on any number of things.

I'm sure you and probably everyone on this board has some story in their life of working for a superior that couldn't do the job of their employees or a co-worker who wasn't particularly skilled or worked well with their team but still remained on the staff somehow.

Here's an example that might resonate with you, personally: If the Blazers bring Chauncey Billups back as coach for a third year, would that mean, objectively, that Billups must be somewhat good at his job in order to maintain it?

 

[PCmor7]

I'm going to let this go and whoever wants to debate how objective I am can do so. I've made my point and I just keep repeating myself to covered ears.

I'm not going to derail the thread any further for those that actually want to talk about the games.

 

[theprunetang]

This is just ridiculous. I gave my opinion and I gave what she said and I explained why the way she performed would be considered unprofessional. To somehow say that's not objective is mindboggling.

If I were to say Player A was a poor shooter because he consistently shot below league averages and he wasn't a player I had any particular interest in, how would it not be objective? If you came back and said he's a good shooter because you liked him, how is that objective?

That's what you're doing.

Maybe this is a better question for you. Even though I've pointed out things Burke does that aren't what a good analyst would do, for me to be subjective about this would mean I have a personal dislike of her. Why would I personally dislike her? I don't know her. It's her performance that's not very good. As I said earlier, she might be a wonderful person, but that has nothing to do with how she calls basketball games.

How is that unprofessional? Just because you believe that to be unprofessional does not make it the objective truth. And Brooks is simply NOT a good shooter, so she was telling the truth. I'm done arguing with you though because this is ridiculous. Feel free to reply or not. I won't be replying back either way.

 

[blazerkor]

@PCmor7 I had forgot but now I do remember the thing you said and there was no reason for me to comment once I'd read it. I knew Dame had said it, I'm still not sure he hasn't said it more than the one time and I'm not going to do the leg work to find out. I read that the post that had Dame's quote in it right after I read your post, so I liked the one that supported what I had said and moved on. I didn't think it was necessary to reply. That's all.

On a different note you seem to have a problem when it comes to the way you perceive what objective means. It is very hard for something to be objective... some philosophers think with the limits we have to our perception that true objectivity is impossible. Things that have been considered empirical evidence have been found to be misunderstood later. So getting to a point where you're sure something that you are stating is objective is pretty hard to do.

What is very possible and in fact easy to say is that you are expressing your opinions that are anything but objective truths when it comes to Doris Burke. That's all I will say about this. Still no hard feelings on my side. Good luck with everything.

 

[blazerkor]

How is that unprofessional? Just because you believe that to be unprofessional does not make it the objective truth. And Brooks is simply NOT a good shooter, so she was telling the truth. I'm done arguing with you though because this is ridiculous. Feel free to reply or not. I won't be replying back either way.

He can have the opinion that it's unprofessional and I can see where he is coming from. The problem is that it's the definition of subjectivity and that's why you guys can have such a difference of opinion about it.

 

[blazerkor]

I'm going to let this go and whoever wants to debate how objective I am can do so. I've made my point and I just keep repeating myself to covered ears.

I'm not going to derail the thread any further for those that actually want to talk about the games.

 

[theprunetang]

He can have the opinion that it's unprofessional and I can see where he is coming from. The problem is that it's the definition of subjectivity and that's why you guys can have such a difference of opinion about it.

100%. I am not the one claiming my opinion is truth though. That's why I'm done arguing with him. Hell, Aminu, in his 4 years in Portland was a better shooter than Brooks' career stats, let alone his abysmal shooting the last 2 or so seasons.

 

[Tince]

I got the tech but why did Sac get the ball back there? Had it on mute.

I had the same thought when it happened. Maybe loss of possession is part of the deal for calling a timeout when you don't have one. I'm not positive.

 

[THE HCP]

 

[illmatic99]

View attachment 55656



I remember he spoke to local media when the Knicks, and he, came to Portland and said essentially the same things...maybe that's where those quotes are from

and I'm pretty sure Cronin implied that the Blazers got something for a player that would likely leave. Now part of that was probably based upon having to re-sign him and the Vulcans pinching pennies

Thank you.

 

[illmatic99]

I had the same thought when it happened. Maybe loss of possession is part of the deal for calling a timeout when you don't have one. I'm not positive.

Learn something new every day. I had no idea that was the rule

 

[Strenuus]

Does that mean all S2 mods are created equal because they've all been proficient enough at moderation to become S2 mods?

You know what I mean here. Getting a job, holding a job, and being good at a job aren't all the same thing.

Have you seen my posts? I'm a fucking idiot.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Wow... that was one of the more pedantic arguments I've seen on here in the nearly 15 years I've been on this board. I'm glad I missed it while it was happening.

 

[TBpup]

Another glaring example of Laker favoritism as the 76'ers/Nets series finished up last week while the NBA schedule makers give creaky LeBron and creakier AD ridiculous extra days off as they are only through game 3 so far. It's versus Memphis, so as much as I don't like the Grizzlies, find myself begrudgingly rooting for them in a series that feels like it is taking forever.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

Another glaring example of Laker favoritism as the 76'ers/Nets series finished up last week while the NBA schedule makers give creaky LeBron and creakier AD ridiculous extra days off as they are only through game 3 so far. It's versus Memphis, so as much as I don't like the Grizzlies, find myself begrudgingly rooting for them in a series that feels like it is taking forever.

I was just looking at that. Why did they get an extra day twice so far through this series? Yes they played in the play in but Denver and the T-wolves have played 4 games already.

 

[theprunetang]

Thank you.

I'm glad he found that too. I heard you asking the question and had no clue how to find that.

 

[KingSpeed]

I was just looking at that. Why did they get an extra day twice so far through this series? Yes they played in the play in but Denver and the T-wolves have played 4 games already.

Might have something to do with other events at the Crypto.com Arena.

 

[inconceivable]

People repeatedly keep pointing to this interview. Where did he say this?

Probably the cronin press conference post trade deadline. It's not that he won't resign, but we wouldn't be able to afford him. I think that's what it was.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Nah that depth got them into the playoffs missing their stars all season.

They have two pretty big stars and both played over 50 games this season. They had more depth and a higher payroll than any team in the league which is why they we picked by many to win it all. They could definitely win tomorrow night and make it a series. But if they don't.....how is that not a major failure? They have not looked good all season.

 

[blazerkor]

They have two pretty big stars and both played over 50 games this season. They had more depth and a higher payroll than any team in the league which is why they we picked by many to win it all. They could definitely win tomorrow night and make it a series. But if they don't.....how is that not a major failure? They have not looked good all season.

Their two superstars have only played 38 games together this season. That's rough. When you have two super max guys on your roster who can each be top 10 players in the league when healthy but can't seem to keep them healthy, you're going to have a hard time. If they were healthy or even got healthy right now, they would be a really tough out with the roster that the Clippers have put around them.

 

[wizenheimer]

Their two superstars have only played 38 games together this season. That's rough. When you have two super max guys on your roster who can each be top 10 players in the league when healthy but can't seem to keep them healthy, you're going to have a hard time. If they were healthy or even got healthy right now, they would be a really tough out with the roster that the Clippers have put around them.

in the last 6 seasons Kawhi has played in 230 games. That's an average of 38 games a season

since the Clippers added PG13 4 years ago he has played in 199 games. That's actually less than 50 games a year

so, between the two of them they are averaging 44 games/year....and both are injured right now. That's not a matter of misfortune; that's a matter of poor management. They rolled the dice on a pair of injury prone players and have lost the bet. I'd wonder, in the last 4 seasons, how many games those two have played together. Just googled and it says that the two have played a total of 118 games together in 4 seasons. That's 29.5 games/year

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/how-many-games-did-kawhi-leonard-and-paul-george-played-together

I guess it would seem like the best bet for the Clips is to keep rebooting and see if tose two can ever be healthy, at the same time, for the playoffs. But the odds sure seem to be against it happening. PG13 is 33 and Kawhi will turn 32 in a month. Age + Injury history = bad bet?

I think teams need to prioritize injury histories a little bit more than they do. The Clippers look a lot better on paper than on the floor and in their record(s). The same is true for the Pelicans with Zion and Ingram

 

[HansenYang]

PG13 is 33 and Kawhi will turn 32 in a month. Age + Injury history = bad bet?

I think teams need to prioritize injury histories a little bit more than they do. The Clippers look a lot better on paper than on the floor and in their record(s). The same is true for the Pelicans with Zion and Ingram

Dame is not there yet, but he's starting to enter into the same conversation.

 

[blazerkor]

Dame is not there yet, but he's starting to enter into the same conversation.

Ummm... no. Dame missed most of a season for an injury that almost never has lingering issues after being corrected. This season he would have missed like 15 games or something with that calf and might not have even missed that many had we been on a trajectory towards contention. That is worlds away from what we're talking about with the two superstars on the Clippers... like two different universes.