(06-17-2022, 08:02 AM)MrGoat Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, if you watched that series it never was 17%. If you were to run that series 100 times Golden State would win it a lot more than 17 times.
The percentages aren't based on people "watching" the teams. They are based mostly on statistical information.
I personally don't spend much time with Raptor analysis in regard to wins and losses because it doesn't account for team trends. But I can't see much reason to complain about it.
The Raptor design actually originated from studies outside of basketball. It's probably more useful when discussing a player's individual strengths more than team concepts.
(06-17-2022, 11:56 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]And their offense is pretty much what we do. I go, then you go.
I don't think their offense is the same at all. The Mavs offense is heavily heliocentric, it's based on our guards (and especially Luka) creating shots for others. Boston doesn't really have any outstanding shot creators, they just rely on individual scorers. It's more similar to the Clippers' offense, the difference is Tatum is nowhere close to the player that Kawhi is.
(06-17-2022, 12:02 PM)Branduil Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think their offense is the same at all. The Mavs offense is heavily heliocentric, it's based on our guards (and especially Luka) creating shots for others. Boston doesn't really have any outstanding shot creators, they just rely on individual scorers. It's more similar to the Clippers' offense, the difference is Tatum is nowhere close to the player that Kawhi is.
I think that’s what the intent of our offense is supposed to be, the execution is closer to what Boston is doing. Esp when either JB or SD have the ball in hand.
GSW is a great team. No shame in losing to them. In fact Dallas got a win and should have another win as one of the games we lost i have no clue how Dallas lost that one. Overall GSW was clearly better than Dallas and deserved to win the series overall.
Boston won 2 games against GSW. Dallas one game. Denver one game. Memphis two games. GSW in fact dominated each series in fact, and no team came even close to pushing them at the line.
Dallas is among the very best teams in NBA, top four likely or top 5. That's something to be proud of. Dallas core is really young and looking future-wise its looking alot brighter than it does for GSW. And also against other teams. Dallas would take down a team Celtics for sure. GSW just had way way too much skill and experience and depth.
Now with Wood we add more depth and skill. What we gave for that deal we couldnt use any of those assets in playoffs anyway. We are better playoff team now. With a year more Luka and Brunson are even better, they have kept improving each season. Dallas probably needs one more piece, but I think ready to contend next season, even without that additional player.
(06-17-2022, 12:24 PM)burekemde Wrote: [ -> ]Dallas core is really young and looking future-wise its looking alot brighter than it does for GSW
Not really the case. Dallas obviously has Luka and Brunson but overall it is one of the older rosters in the league. Main rotation players from this season besides them are all 29/30+. GS big three are older but they successfully integrated younger guys like Poole and Kuminga. Still have Wiseman as a wildcard.
(06-17-2022, 12:31 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]Not really the case. Dallas obviously has Luka and Brunson but overall it is one of the older rosters in the league. Main rotation players from this season besides them are all 29/30+. GS big three are older but they successfully integrated younger guys like Poole and Kuminga. Still have Wiseman as a wildcard.
Wiggins is a dilemma. They don't chip without him. His now on the last year of his deal. I don't think they can retain him long term and sign Poole who everyone is projecting as the future.
-Do they run it back with Wiggins and try to repeat and then let him walk for nothing? They'd certainly have a good shot at repeating, especially if Klay can bounce back.
-Do they trade Wiggins and try to turn him into something smaller and more useful long term?
-Would they consider trading Dray or Klay? I doubt either. Dray is the engine that makes everything work. Klay looks washed up but maybe the 2nd year after all those injuries will let him get much closer to being himself than what he has shown this past year. I'd personally try to move off of Klay and build around an aging Steph, Wiggins and Poole but again, I think they'll be loyal to both Klay and Dray.
I am glad Golden State won. I love watching their style of ball.
It will be interesting to see what Boston does this offseason. With Jaylen and Tatum still young, they should have a nice run. The East broke really well for them this year. May not break for them again like it did this year. I think a guy like Tyus Jones would work perfect there. But I am not sure if there is a big enough role for him there and I think he gets more then the MLE. He should. Horford and Rob Williams were really good this year. But Horford will be 37 during next years playoffs and Williams is a constant injury concern. If either are out or have a slip in play, they could really use a big defender. Theis can provide spot minutes, but not someone you want to count on in the playoffs.
(06-17-2022, 04:26 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]Would LOVE the rule change of not getting charged tax for players you drafted.
https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42/status/...4826702849
It doesn't make sense to me tbh.
Those luxury tax rules are to force teams to let go their own talent in order to make parity in the league.
The idea is that, if it weren't for their deep pocket, they would let go some talent to other teams, doesn't matter if it was traded or not.
If it wasn't for that, OKC would have kept Harden as their 6th man, and Rockets team as contender would have never happened.
(06-17-2022, 04:26 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]Would LOVE the rule change of not getting charged tax for players you drafted.
https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42/status/...4826702849
I would not say NO tax is the right move. What I do think they should do, is update the supermax rules. A supermax should count as a regular max contract for salary cap and luxury tax purposes, but you should be able to greatly exceed that number in actual payment to the player. I.E., a Luka supermax would count as $40 million per year(or whatever the regular max is now) on the payroll, but the Mavs could actually pay him closer to $50 million per year.
The problem with the supermax as written is it actually punished teams for paying their players, instead of rewarding them.
I should add that I would make this extra supermax money something like a trade kicker, to also disincentivize players signing a supermax and then almost immediately demanding a trade. They could still be traded, but they would have to waive the bonus supermax money.
(06-18-2022, 01:24 AM)Branduil Wrote: [ -> ]I should add that I would make this extra supermax money something like a trade kicker, to also disincentivize players signing a supermax and then almost immediately demanding a trade. They could still be traded, but they would have to waive the bonus supermax money.
The problem is the fact that teams do trade players,players don't trade themselves at least officially.
This won't work unless players automatically get no trade clause with their supermax.
And god, this could end up disastrous for many teams
(06-18-2022, 03:58 AM)khaled1987 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is the fact that teams do trade players,players don't trade themselves at least officially.
This won't work unless players automatically get no trade clause with their supermax.
And god, this could end up disastrous for many teams
Functionally, yeah, I think that would be a good idea. I think the supermax should work both ways, it's a reward for loyalty, which means that it should require the consent of both parties to break that agreement.
![[Image: FVedwxSUUAIzz7k?format=jpg&name=large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVedwxSUUAIzz7k?format=jpg&name=large)