BadJerry20
Internet Super Hero
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2012
- Messages
- 65,901
- Likes
- 8,576
Irving had a very good defensive effort in game one but he plays a style that still slows Curry to get his. Dellevadova is playing a frustrating style of defense. He's face guarding and constantly putting hands on Curry. Therein lies the difference, Irving used his athletic ability to make plays and simply stay in front of Curry, where Matthew is playing him with pure physicality and grit.
Actually, for once I was basing my analysis on what I see. I just threw in 4 steals and 7 boards to support my point. I don't see what you're talking about. IMO, Curry would destroy Delly if there wasn't so much help. He can get around Delly pretty easy, IMO. He stays on Curry's hip because the other guys slow him down.
Actually, for once I was basing my analysis on what I see. I just threw in 4 steals and 7 boards to support my point. I don't see what you're talking about. IMO, Curry would destroy Delly if there wasn't so much help. He can get around Delly pretty easy, IMO. He stays on Curry's hip because the other guys slow him down.
Ass handed with a lot of help.
Nobody is hitting anything for gs and that allows all defenders to key on curry.
I tried to find a video of all Curry's misses this series, and this is the best I could do. Here are all 13 of Curry's 3 point misses in game 2. Dellavadova only defended him on 4 of the 13, and he was only in his face on two of the shots (behind him on one, and the other one he was stumbling and late to close out).
So, it looks like game 2 was a team effort, at least.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_PtpFmWPMY[/youtube]
It's a copout to say people ball watch. We can't argue that. You can say he does a better job off the ball, but I can't find a video that confirms or refutes that. It takes the conversation to a place that is 100% hearsay.
It's a copout to say people ball watch. We can't argue that. You can say he does a better job off the ball, but I can't find a video that confirms or refutes that. It takes the conversation to a place that is 100% hearsay.
Pay attention to the whole floor and you can argue it. It's not my problem I watch basketball differently than you and notice the whole floor.
Pay attention to the whole floor and you can argue it. It's not my problem I watch basketball differently than you and notice the whole floor.
I rarely watch the ball, always been that way. I like to watch the action of the play and try and see what it is a team is trying to do.
It's easy to do because you can always switch back to the ball and see the shot. And it's not like there isn't going to be a replay.
Take Curry's most incredible shot last night. He has the ball on the right wing and starts to cross court, I stop watching him and see that two screens are being set and then a third, before he ever got past the first screen I knew Curry was about to get a good look. It ended up being more contested than I thought it would be.
Not many people watch the game that way, it's the only way I can.
Why do you assume I don't watch the whole floor? God, you guys are arrogant. It's like I'm talking to basketball royalty right now. Teach me how to watch the whole floor, please.
Considering you frame everything in black and white and ignore circumstance and context and on top of that you operate in the margins in regards to statistical measure it's hard to assume you watch the game at all. Let alone do more than the average dolt who stares at the ball.
How the hell did you see all that? It's damn amazing!
