NBA Game Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1,206
#1,206
You don't like Rubio on D? I think he's great. He passes my eye test (despite being white) and...

He's 2nd in steals, and he is one of two PGs who gets as many steals as turnovers...the other guy is CP3.

Rubio also leads all PGs in steals to foul ratio...which means he's as quick as they come. He's also 4th in rebounds among PGs, which means he is relatively physical.
 
#1,208
#1,208
If you were wondering how the Jazz could possibly beat OKC when Durant scores 48...the Jazz shot 59% and Durant was 14 for 34!
 
#1,214
#1,214
BadJerry20 said:
OKC with Russ 21-5
OKC without Russ 6-3

Just saying
Click to expand...

Most teams will struggle at first without their starting PG (as long as he is decent). Factor in replacing his minutes with D-Fish and you really have a problem...that being said, 6-3 is pretty good. I probably wouldn't argue the Thunder are better off without Westbrook, but I think there are a ton of ways they could spend that money better.

.667 would have landed you the 2-seed in the east last year and the 6th seed in the west (damn the west is so good).
 
Last edited:
#1,215
#1,215
n_huffhines said:
Is this legit or are you just saying this? Do they have the same win % without him?
Click to expand...

NM, I just checked...they actually did do better in 25 games without him last year. I could be wrong about Rubio, but I highly doubt it. The T-wolves had so many injuries last year it's kinda hard to figure out what's going on.

Pekovic missed 20 games. AK47 missed 18 games. Love missed 64 games. Budinger missed 59 games. Rubio missed 25 games.

It would have been nice to see that team healthy.
 
#1,217
#1,217
That's funny, because I was critical of Rubio before he came to the NBA. I had never seen him play and that was before someone explained to me Euro league assists aren't counted the same. Either way, it was still weird that they only played him like 18 MPG.
 
#1,218
#1,218
n_huffhines said:
Most teams will struggle at first without their starting PG (as long as he is decent). Factor in replacing his minutes with D-Fish and you really have a problem...that being said, 6-3 is pretty good. I probably wouldn't argue the Thunder are better off without Westbrook, but I think there are a ton of ways they could spend that money better.

.667 would have landed you the 2-seed in the east last year and the 6th seed in the west (damn the west is so good).
Click to expand...

You said the TWolves win less without Rubio, and OKC wins about the same without Russ. Neither of which is true. I just posted the record to bust your head a little. I've explained before why Russ has a low fg% and his tos are high. Part of that is recklessness, part of that is him bailing out a sometimes bad halfcourt offense.
 
#1,219
#1,219
n_huffhines said:
That's funny, because I was critical of Rubio before he came to the NBA. I had never seen him play and that was before someone explained to me Euro league assists aren't counted the same. Either way, it was still weird that they only played him like 18 MPG.
Click to expand...

I had seen him maybe 3-4 times and kept telling friends how good he was, he made look like an idiot early on. Lol
 
#1,220
#1,220
The funny thing about Russ is I wanted him gone and Hardin to stay. I couldn't stand to watch him play, and he frustrated me to no end. But the guy has matured and become a better player. The finals changed my opinion a lot, he was the only guy that wasn't playing scared. The big problem to me is Brooks, he's just not an elite level coach. IMO
 
#1,222
#1,222
BadJerry20 said:
You said the TWolves win less without Rubio, and OKC wins about the same without Russ. Neither of which is true. I just posted the record to bust your head a little. I've explained before why Russ has a low fg% and his tos are high. Part of that is recklessness, part of that is him bailing out a sometimes bad halfcourt offense.
Click to expand...

I dispute this.

Judging Rubio on last season isn't really fair because of all the injuries. 2 years ago they were clearly better with Rubio. The T-Wolves went 21-20 with Rubio that season, and 5-20 without him. Consider that Rubio has improved since his rookie year, as well.

Since the Thunder have only played 9 regular season games without Westbrook ever, I'd say the jury is still out on that. They are .667 without him, and last year they were .731 with him*...I'd say that's "about the same" (a difference of 5 wins over a season).

*All of this has to be taken with a grain of salt because 26 games this season with him, and 9 games without him are not statistically significant sample sizes.
 
#1,223
#1,223
n_huffhines said:
I dispute this.

Judging Rubio on last season isn't really fair because of all the injuries. 2 years ago they were clearly better with Rubio. The T-Wolves went 21-20 with Rubio that season, and 5-20 without him. Consider that Rubio has improved since his rookie year, as well.

Since the Thunder have only played 9 regular season games without Westbrook ever, I'd say the jury is still out on that. They are .667 without him, and last year they were .731 with him*...I'd say that's "about the same" (a difference of 5 wins over a season).

*All of this has to be taken with a grain of salt because 26 games this season with him, and 9 games without him are not statistically significant sample sizes.
Click to expand...

How many of that 5-20 included games that Love missed? And yes that works both ways. Last year doesn't support your argument so you go to his rookie year, even though you admittedly say he's improved since then.

The second part is comical at best. 26 games with him and 9 without are not significant sample sizes. Yet you compare their win % without him this year to last years 82 game season? Lol Are you serious? 26 with isnt significant enough but 82 with is? Come on man wtf? They have a 80.8% with him this year and a 66.7% without him. That would be a 12 game difference. That is not about the same period.
 
Last edited:
#1,224
#1,224
Ftr 2 years ago the TWolves had 2 guys play over 60 games, last year 8 guys played 60. So overall health was better last year. How you can dismiss last year because of injuries but bring up 2 years ago is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
#1,225
#1,225
BadJerry20 said:
How many of that 5-20 included games that Love missed? And yes that works both ways. Last year doesn't support your argument so you go to his rookie year, even though you admittedly say he's improved since then.

The second part is comical at best. 26 games with him and 9 without are not significant sample sizes. Yet you compare their win % without him this year to last years 82 game season? Lol Are you serious? 26 with isnt significant enough but 82 with is? Come on man wtf? They have a 80.8% with him this year and a 66.7% without him. That would be a 12 game difference. That is not about the same period.
Click to expand...

Love missed 11 games that season and it would take too much time to figure out if that overlapped with Rubio missing.

Yeah, 82 is a significant sample. The standard minimum in the science of statistics is 40 observations (or 40 games for our purposes). The more observations, the more significance increases. Like I said, I take the 9 games with a grain of salt. I don't know what you're crying about.
 
Last edited:
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top