NBA Thread 2022-23 Season | Page 162 | Syracusefan.com

NBA Thread 2022-23 Season

MikeSU02 said:
Pretty sure it was Harden or Doc.

And I think Morey picked Harden.

Just speculating based on some rumors.
Expand...
Interesting. Both guys are basically the same - they can get you into the playoffs and get you into the deeper rounds, but neither seems to have the "game" to get over the hump. At this stage of their careers you know what you get with both. I would never hire Doc.
 
IthacaBarrel said:
Doubter in what capacity? if they redraft 2009, he goes 2nd not 3rd and Curry goes first. Unless you would rather have Thabeet at 2? :):)

Harden has stunk in many big moments throughout the playoffs but he's still an MVP, all NBA type and a 1st ballot hall of famer. He also has never really taken great care of himself and it shows at times
Expand...
He's atrocious in elimination games. Hate the way he draws fouls and flops. Probably will be first ballot HOF but I still don't enjoy his style of play.
 
kirbivore said:
He's atrocious in elimination games. Hate the way he draws fouls and flops. Probably will be first ballot HOF but I still don't enjoy his style of play.
Expand...


yeah I think most would agree.
 
Harden has to be first, but Embiid has to up there at this point even though he's just been on one team.

 
MikeSU02 said:
Harden has to be first, but Embiid has to up there at this point even though he's just been on one team.

Expand...
Kyrie also an obvious recent one. I'm trying to think back further just for fun. Deron Williams? Marbury?

Really it feels like more of Player Empowerment era thing though.

Aside from the coming up short in the playoffs thing (with a few notable years the exception), you could apply the rest of that criteria to Lebron as well.
 
Well there you have it dasher. Now your Celtics can go hire Doc if the want to blow series leads.
 
Melancer46 said:
Kyrie also an obvious recent one. I'm trying to think back further just for fun. Deron Williams? Marbury?

Really it feels like more of Player Empowerment era thing though.

Aside from the coming up short in the playoffs thing (with a few notable years the exception), you could apply the rest of that criteria to Lebron as well.
Expand...

Yeah true but I think the point is the rings make up for it. You're right, it is kind of a player empowerment deal, so you better win if you do it! (which is why when I threw out Kyrie my buddy did counter with the 2016 title, which, fair)

I don't think you can ever really argue Lebron has come up short in the playoffs in the same way we've seen Embiid or Harden. 2011 finals is fair. (The one playoff series Lebron has ever played in out of 52 where he averaged under 22 points a game) So one time in 20 years or whatever.
 
Simmons 100% wrote that tweet with Harden in mind.

Amazing that in the 90’s George Karl and Jerry Sloan lasted as long as they did not getting a title.
 
Cusefan0307 said:
Simmons 100% wrote that tweet with Harden in mind.

Amazing that in the 90’s George Karl and Jerry Sloan lasted as long as they did not getting a title.
Expand...

Literally zero doubt he meant Harden.

The Sloan point especially is a crazy one, it goes to show how different things are. Not just Sloan, but Stockton and Malone.

Sloan took over during the 89 season, this is how it went for them
89: 51-31 (40-25 with Sloan). Swept in the first round by a 43 win GSW team that then lost in 5 games
90: 55-27, lost in the first round in 5 (back when it was best of 5) to a Suns team that made the WCF. Malone and Stockton are 26 and 27 at this point. You can see some progress being made here
91: 54-28, won a play-off round, lost in 5 to the Blazers, who lost in the WCF
92: 55-27, lost in the WCF to Portland. So 4 years in, definite progress. Consistent 50 win seasons, winning playoff rounds now
93: 47-35, lost in Rd1 to Seattle. In the current time, this is definitely a major danger signal. Could easily be fired
94: 53-29, lose to the eventual champs in the WCF. Good bounce back
95: 60-22, lose in the first round. It was to Houston who ended up winning, but still 60 wins and a first round loss? Danger again!
96: 55-27, lose in the WCF in 7.
97: 64-18, lost in the finals
98: 62-20, lost in the finals.

That feels like the end of the story for them, but they were 37-13 (61 win pace) in the lockout season before losing to Portland in rd 2, and won 55 games in 2000 and lost in rd 2.

The real danger time to me seems around 93, momentum seemed to be stalling. From 95-99 they won an average of 60 games per year, which is a hell of a run (I would imagine one of the better runs for a team that never won a title) but with the current mindset I think it's inconceivable a team would keep the same coach and 2 star players together for that long without winning a title.
 
Knicks411 said:
Literally zero doubt he meant Harden.

The Sloan point especially is a crazy one, it goes to show how different things are. Not just Sloan, but Stockton and Malone.

Sloan took over during the 89 season, this is how it went for them
89: 51-31 (40-25 with Sloan). Swept in the first round by a 43 win GSW team that then lost in 5 games
90: 55-27, lost in the first round in 5 (back when it was best of 5) to a Suns team that made the WCF. Malone and Stockton are 26 and 27 at this point. You can see some progress being made here
91: 54-28, won a play-off round, lost in 5 to the Blazers, who lost in the WCF
92: 55-27, lost in the WCF to Portland. So 4 years in, definite progress. Consistent 50 win seasons, winning playoff rounds now
93: 47-35, lost in Rd1 to Seattle. In the current time, this is definitely a major danger signal. Could easily be fired
94: 53-29, lose to the eventual champs in the WCF. Good bounce back
95: 60-22, lose in the first round. It was to Houston who ended up winning, but still 60 wins and a first round loss? Danger again!
96: 55-27, lose in the WCF in 7.
97: 64-18, lost in the finals
98: 62-20, lost in the finals.

That feels like the end of the story for them, but they were 37-13 (61 win pace) in the lockout season before losing to Portland in rd 2, and won 55 games in 2000 and lost in rd 2.

The real danger time to me seems around 93, momentum seemed to be stalling. From 95-99 they won an average of 60 games per year, which is a hell of a run (I would imagine one of the better runs for a team that never won a title) but with the current mindset I think it's inconceivable a team would keep the same coach and 2 star players together for that long without winning a title.
Expand...
Good research there. I forgot about them losing to Houston in the first round in 95, but not sure how much of an "upset" that was Rockets were a different team post Drexler trade and the Sonics lost the previous year to Denver which was one of the biggest upsets in playoff history at the time.

The only impact move they really made during the 90's was swapping Jeff Malone for Jeff Hornacek at the 94 deadline.
 
Cusefan0307 said:
Good research there. I forgot about them losing to Houston in the first round in 95, but not sure how much of an "upset" that was Rockets were a different team post Drexler trade and the Sonics lost the previous year to Denver which was one of the biggest upsets in playoff history at the time.

The only impact move they really made during the 90's was swapping Jeff Malone for Jeff Hornacek at the 94 deadline.
Expand...

95 was interesting looking at the standings, because I knew Houston was a 6 seed that year, and I saw utah with 60 wins, and I'm thinking "were they really the 3 seed with 60 wins?" And they were. Kinda. They had the second best record in the whole league that year, but the Spurs won 62 games and were in their division, and the Suns won 59 games and won the Pacific.

What's funny and what I didnt remember, is they actually didnt play that much better in the regular season with Clyde. They were 30-17 when they traded for him and 17-18 with him the rest of the way! Until the playoffs, obviously. They won Game 5 against Utah (best of 5) on the road by 4 and then game 7 in Phoenix by 1 before winning the WCF in 6 and then the finals was a cakewalk thanks to Nick Anderson I guess.

There were a bunch of teams in the west in the early to mid 90s that were really good every year (Utah, Seattle, Phoenix, Portland more in the early part of the decade) that are a little lost to history because they never won a title.

Utah I already did, the Suns from 89-95 won 55,54,55,53,62,56, and 59
Seattle from 93 to 98 was 55,63,57,64,57, and 61
Portland from 90 to 93 was 59,63,57 and then 51.
 
1.8% chance to get Vic.
8.5% to keep pick.


Ill Be Back Jim Carrey GIF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CorduroyG
    • Like
Tuesday is the biggest regular season game since..??
Replies
12
Views
1K
rocfan44
R

Forum statistics

Threads
167,767
Messages
4,726,185
Members
5,920
Latest member
CoachDiddi

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
33
Guests online
1,084
Total visitors
1,117
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom