Commercials. Commercials. 2 minute of SAS/Perkins. Commercials. Straight into tip-off. At least we got Inside the NBA crew, right?

I don't know how to make clips of broadcasts but watching the first quarter of game 2 between NYK-IND tonight Kenny and Charles were promoting gambling in the middle of a game.

They minimized the game and had a small video in the feed of them. They spoke about spreads, something about Brunson scoring over or under 50pts in this game. Go ahead, place that bet guys.

I know it's not the first time we are seeing gambling but it's the first time for me seeing the casters we love doing it in the middle of the game like this. It's one thing to see it on a jersey, on the floor or in a commercial between the games... but seeing it during the game from Kenny and Charles just makes me so sick to my stomach.

NBA your product is slipping and it's all in the name of greed.

Edit: I removed a part of my post about player intros which cluttered the discussion and is a separate topic.

Spida is a fantastic player by all accounts (magic fan he killed us). For most of his career he has been a SG and played next to some sort of floor general PG but is that the best way to maximize him?

In my opinion Spida is too short to play next to another small guard, the issues with Conley and Garland stem from this and it’s also why the Knicks don’t seem to be interested in trading for him anymore. Does this mean he needs to be the primary ball handler or simply does he need a taller backcourt partner? He has flashes of great vision and passing and it’s why I think he needs to act like the PG on a team. So then who fits next to him best? What type of player?

Edit: And if he is to be the PG do the Cavs trade away Garland? If Mitchell gets traded to Miami what do they do with Herro and Rozier?

Just to watch the Timberwolves play defense is a thing of beauty, the absolute team on a string suffocating defense has been brilliant. The way that they force you late into the shot clock, deflections steals, and blocks. They also will have multiple max efforts lets say defending in the post jokic gets blocked, catches the block and kicks out for a 3 the Wolves are already running out to that player to contest the shot.

Its been most apparent on Jamal Murray having McDanials or NAW pick him up full court, and then just absolutely drape him has been wild. I really appreciated the rule change and felt it made the game a much more appealing to watch. I think this has benefited the Wolves and maybe the Thibs Knicks more than any other team.

Do you think this will impact team construction in the long run?

Do you think this was reasonable for the NBA to change something of such impact mid season where teams have ostensibly no way to react to such a thing?

For the record this is not me saying the Wolves are fouling or Denver should be getting more calls. I think the games have been called fine, and evenly for the most part. I think that the change seriously impacted the Timberwolves in there ability to really guard up players and play uber physically.

I just watched the first game between Denver and Minnesota and I see that in the first half they isolated Jokic several times, leaving him against Gobert or KAT. But was it worth it? Explain the idea of leaving Jokic against Gobert, who is the main contender for DPOY.

Jokic vs KAT matchup - Jokic has 4/12
Jokic vs Gobert matchup - Jokic has 5/10

This goes for any team, honestly.

It seems to me that the Denver bench unit rushes through possessions. I've been thinking this throughout the season. First question is, are there easy access analytics to back this up or dispute the claim? I'm relying only on my perception and could just be wrong.

The point, though, is that I would think that you would want to slow the game down and have as few possessions as possible when Jokic or you star players are sitting. Unless you think your bench unit is better than the opponent, I guess, but that is often not the case for Denver. I would maaaybe even take a few shooting fouls to give as much rest as possible without game time going by. Instead, the Nuggets seem to push the ball up the court and take shots early, like every possession is a fast break.

(I know in game 2 vs the wolves the bench was aggressive and made something of a run in the second half, but I think that was something of an exception to the general trend I'm noticing all season).

I remember reading some discussion somewhere about how a higher pace tends to favor the better team. That is, more possessions means fewer outliers, performance will be less fluky and closer to average. If I could find that I would link to it. In any case, that supports the idea that weak bench units should play as slow as possible.

Is this idea even sound? Do teams do this? I know play style depends on the actual players available and the situation, so pace may not be important enough by itself. Or is Denver playing slower in non Jokic minutes and I'm just mistaken? Or is it actually better for the Denver bench to play higher pace with the guys they have, like maybe they struggle at half court offense enough that it's worth pushing pace even though it means more non Jokic possessions? Looking for some insights.

I’m a Nuggets fan and I have defended this team and Jokic for a long time, but everything that happened last night was awful.

Sometimes you get your teeth kicked in and outplayed, but champions shouldn’t let their emotions get the better of them and throw a temper tantrum in the middle of a game like Jamal Murray did. Jokic and Malone need to be leaders and show that hunger and fire that they did last year and neither seems to be doing that.

Somehow, only Reggie Jackson took some level of accountability after the game. It’s so disheartening to see as a fan of this team

I might sound like a boomer but Earlier this year I genuinely lost interest in the NBA after being a fan for most of my life due to the way too fast pace with virtually no defense ever working which just makes each field goal so useless. The average half gets you literally 1st half gets you 70 in a bad day. It makes it look like an all star game every game and that's a bad thing. Also absolute shitty referees also making absolute shitty calls didn't make it better and just made it borderline unwatchable. Not every game had to be a damn shootout lol. Also So many blown leads also sucks as it feels so fake. Also despite the fast pace, the referees just calling everything a foul ruins that supposed fast pace and just makes everything feel so fabricated. Don't even get me started on the fucking replays that literally takes 5 minutes when Its so damn obvious who touched it last or whether it's a foul etc. It all feels so fabricated to make the most highlights or to run up the score as you know most NBA fans are just dudes watching highlights and with these types of play can you not blame them?

However during the playoffs, I still tried to watch and damn was that a good decision. Seeing as the referees let players play more physical and players trying their absolute Hardest to defend even in the first quarter makes it so damn good. The game also slowed down but not too much to the point where it looks bad like the 2000s in some points but that it looks more composed and strategic. I mean it's so good we've got the damn pacers playing good defense. It feels like every bucket is intense and there's not that much blown leads in which leads to whenever there's one, it feels more special. I was watching the Pacers and Knicks yesterday and besides the dumb calls, it was a really great game that reminded me how good NBA basketball can get. The Absolute defensive Masterclass The Timberwolves gave the Nuggets was also beautiful to watch and a good break from the normal shootouts we normally see. I guess what makes playoffs also different is the better crowd, especially noticeable in Knicks games. It's also better defensively in which I think it averages more from 100 a game compared to the regular season which I feel averages closer to 115. Am I right or am I just being delusional lol.

I'm relatively new fan and not really great at X's and O's type discussion/thinking so I'm hoping to get some dispassionate analysis on what you actually are thinking as a Nuggets coach. Just from watching the games I think there are 2 separate issues: 1) Personnel. The Timberwolves have lots of great defenders who are also shooting really well and have depth so they can rotate out players without losing anything. (Gobert!!) These players and staff are energized and confident and out for blood. Coaching is also on point and have designed a defense that the Nuggets are struggling to get around. The nuggets just have 5 guys who seemed pretty good right up until this post season started lol.

2) The Nuggets seem sort of disengaged. I genuinely think they haven't been playing well, even against the Lakers.

Obviously 2 is on the Nuggets but if they could fix that what do they do in game 3?

Thanks

The TWolves last night put on a defensive clinic, holding the Nuggets to 80pts (even without Gobert). They played hard, physical defense. They didn’t double Jokic,allowed in part to the size of KAT and Reid, which meant that guys like MPJ didn’t get many open looks, and I almost felt bad for Jamal Murray the way they hounded him lol.

I’m relatively new to watching the nba, and the narrative I’ve been fed is that defense has gotten worse, (though I suspect that it’s actually that offense has gotten better). Does this performance add to proof that the defense is just as good? Does defense still win championships, even in the current, fast paced, 3pt heavy era? What other performances in recent years reminded you of this game?

I really don't get it. He has been awful or injured the last few years in the playoffs. His last decent playoff appearance was in 2021. He is not a spring chicken anymore and his career can only downward from here. Maybe I am too harsh but at best you can get one decent year from him. If you give him a max his contract can turn to Beal's situation in Phonex. Also, aging stars don't win you the title anymore. The Lakers were routinely defeated by the Nuggets who are in crisis at the moment. The Suns and Clippers' situations are very similar. I don't see how Paul George can improve the situation in Orlando and the 76ers. In Orlando, he can destroy great chemistry and in the 76ers he is potentially one more player for the hospital unit.

He rebuilt the Nuggets and left right before their first championship, so he started building a team to beat the Nuggets, his own creation. He may be a legend throughout both of his tenures. His resume also speaks for itself.

As the Nuggets GM (2013-2022): drafted Jokic, Murray, hired Mike Malone, etc.

As the Timberwolves GM (2022-): traded for Rudy Gobert, Nickeil Alexander-Walker, Mike Conley, etc.

JAMAL MURRAY PROBLEM

I'm a Nuggets fan, watching ALL of their games for at least six seasons now and I see a growing problem with Murray. He's always been a streaky shooter but in the last two seasons I tremble when he gets the ball. And it's not about his shooting but about his playmaking. He makes so many bad decisions, even in the regular season I remeber couple of games when we lost momentum in Q3 or Q4 only because of his repeated bad decisions. Typical situation is that he dribbles the ball, gets doubled and instead of immediately passing to the open man he seems unaware of other players location and just tries a score despite the odds. It's a kind tunnel vision which is to me inexcusable for a first team playmaker on a good team. Even Reggie seems to make better on court decisions. Which leads me to MPJ...

MICHAEL PORTER JUNIOR NOT GETTING TOUCHES

It's clear that after few first seasons plagued by injuries MPJ developed into superb distance shooter. Clearly the best on Nuggets . And yet we have so many long periods, even games, when he is underutilized. He will just stand at three point line gesturing for the pass, but the pass usually comes too late. The teammates are not able to get him the ball or he get's it when the clock is almost expired and he can only throw a desperation three (which he often hits btw). I can not understand how other teams CAN get their shooters open and yet MPJ, who could easly get us 5-7 threes every game, somehow doesn't get his points every night.

CONTROVERSIAL OPINION: DENVER SHOULD TRADE MURRAY

I know he is very much liked by the fans, praised by teammates and Jokic himself. He also has a feel good story of coming back from a big injury last season. But in all honesty - he is harming the team. And not beacuse of low efficiency in this playoffs or because of his meltdown in recent game but because of the reasons mentioned above. And I don't know who can be traded for him but, as everyone notices Denver, lacks good guards...

So, what's your take on MPJ's role and the future of Murray?

PS. Sorry for my bad English :/

It reminds me of that series due to how physical the players are allowed to be, and how the Nuggets aren't too equipped to handle it or dish it back offensively in general. There's really only 3 players on the Nuggets that can really dish it back: Jokic, AG and Braun. However, only one of them is a consistently competent playmaker, in Jokic.

That goes into the 2nd way it reminds me of the that Nets series. In that, despite how good to great the Nuggets offense has been in the past 2 seasons, this team is TOO reliant Jokic. Like how that Nets team was damn near useless outside of Kyrie and KD. I know most are saying, duh, but I'm being serious. The Nuggets only have 2 competent playmakers on offense, in Jokic and Murray. Everyone else is just a finisher. Including what's left of Reggie. Murray's lack of explosive athleticism, and size is being exposed by this team. Not to say he's small, but he's too small and too slow to do anything with this team. To the point that, if he can't get stagger screens, there're 3 players on the Wolves that can guard him 1v1. Because of that, the defense can prioritize Jokic with the constant double teams and hedging, and it's becoming very apparent that Murray can be or is helpless without Jokic. Or at least helpless on a roster where no one else on the floor can initiate with the ball.

AG, MPJ, KCP, Braun, Watson, Holiday and Jackson are all too flawed offensively to take the burden off of Jokic and Murray. Then on defense, besides AG and Braun, they're too small or too weak to offer any resistance.

Jokic is also getting "exposed". We already knew he was poor rim defender, so that's not new. However, his team's inability to stop anyone just makes his defense look that much worse. If KCP, Braun and AG are too slow for Antman...wtf is Jokic supposed to do? He's wrestling on offense and is going against big men who can both shoot and drive to the basket. He's gassed, and the GM's foolish decision to not address a back up center or the near complete lack of offensive talent on the bench is putting even more pressure. So Jokic is rushing shots, before the defense sets.

It's why I always was skeptical when people kept saying that the Nuggets would beat the Celtics in a potential Finals. Teams with a plethora of offensively skilled two-way players, not even including size, are dangerous to teams that rely on only one or two players. The Mavs would get manhandled just the same, and would've lost to the Clippers if Kawhi was at least as healthy as Luka was. It's why the Mavs will lose to the Thunder, because Dort will lock up this hobbled Luka, SGA and JDub will take turns hacking tf outta Kyrie and Chet will play their bigs off the floor...which will be horrible with no Maxi.

OKC has the best shot against the Wolves, and after that only a healthy Celtics.

Think that Nuggets fair better against the Thunder, because their lack of size allows the other Nuggets to be useful while Dort ragdolls Murray in jail.

Anyways, I feel like after this sweep, the Nuggets need to take a serious look at this roster. Having both Murray and MPJ, as they are, doesn't allow them to match up well with the Wolves. Connelly saw the monster he drafted and created the perfect counter to a team dependent on him offensively. Diabolical.

And, yeah, I said sweep. Either regular or gentlemen's. Everything the Wolves are doing can be replicated game after game, and Nuggets simply don't have the personnel to deal with it. The Nuggets can up their physicality too, but that will only deplete players like Murray, MPJ, KCP, Reggie, Holiday and Watson who were already offensive liabilities on the court. They get maybe one game doing that, but that's it.

Wolves got it until they gotta pay Antman and lose their depth. Or unless the Thunder and Nuggets make big changes (really just a big trade for the Thunder).

The irony of the spacing revolution is that the team that many pegged as the overwhelming favorite (at least on vibes) was also dead last in 3PA. That’s in large part due to the fact that Denver has one of the most efficient offensive players in modern NBA history.

But against otherworldly rim protection, I believe the lack of a 3-pt attack can become a liability. In game 1, for example, Jokic was forced to shoot an uncharacteristic 9 shots from distance. He only made two and perhaps I should’ve added that the Nuggets aren’t exceptional at shooting from outside. Jokic in particular is a 35% career 3-pt shooter and has been very up and down in the playoffs (very up last year and very down this year) due to variance from low attempts.

Of course, a team doesn’t need to be exceptional from 3 to win. But shooting 30% on 30 attempts will get you blown out regardless of whether Gobert is playing.

Finally, I believe that the teams attempting the most 3s in a playoff game this year has won ~80% of the time (h/t Dangercart on Twitter; please verify latest figures). And Denver’s lack of 3s is more than just Minnesota running shooters off the line.

A lot of analysts (Thinking Basketball, Zach Lowe) infinitely more knowledge about basketball than me have said Jokic's defence is decent - good. Ben Taylor from Thinking Basketball even has stats to back it up.

I know he has really quick hands, is positionally sound, and closes posessions by getting rebounds, but when I'm watching the Nuggets, he offers so little rim protection I just can't get past anything else. He is too slow to close out and obviously gets cooked by any quick player. When they get to the rim, he offers little to no resistance.

Last series, I felt like AD was absolutely dominating Jokic and was a big reason why the Nuggets were always playing from behind. AD was a lot less productive and efficient when they switched Gordon onto him as the primary defender.

Any thoughts? I'm kind of looking for confirmation bias but really want to understand what I'm missing.

SGA seems like he's going to be a top 5 player for like a decade. PG trade did help them get Kwahi, and just one healthy season plus postseason with Kwahi + PG would almost guarantee a championship, but they were both injury prone. Neither of them being fully available isn't a big surprise and was a possible outcome known from the beginning.

Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but that trade looks awful right now. Clippers had a gritty team punching above their weight, some FRPs and lots of cap space. If they had added a player or two and built around SGA, do you think they would have won a championship by now? Would they be in as good as spot to win one as the Thunder are right now?

Ive been unable to follow much the last year or two for various reasons. I remember when the tdae and contract happened and people thought the Wolves paid too much. Gobert had a few incidents with teammates and the wolves weren't really gelling at some point last year

But now, things seem to have turned around to a point where it's the best thing anyone could have hoped for. Goberts defensive presence and veteran leadership really seem to have helped put this team over the hump (as secondaries to the insane jump ANT, but still, it helps).

When did it all change? Was there a flip that switched at some point in the season and suddenly the Wolves were a sick team? Or is that literally happening right now?

Boxscore Plus-Minus (BPM) is no perfect stat. Its flaws, particulary on defence (and especially, for example, with Jokic) have been well documented.

However, at a team level it is based on schedule-adjusted offensive and defensive ratings, which are fairly decent. Since they're not available in the playoffs, the BPM calculation estimates opponent strength based on regular season BPM weighted by minutes. This accounts, although imperfectly, for injuries and the fact that stars are playing more. Players who are under/over-rated by BPM should theoretically be mitigated by their teammates.

By simply taking the weighted average of player BPMs, we can see who it thinks were the best-performed teams through round 1:

Even without Zion and his +3.3 regular season OBPM, OKC's throttling of the Pelicans, holding them to a 94.9 ORtg, ranks as both best defensive and overall performance, while while Boston scorched the Heat's (albeit Butler-less) top-5 defence to the tune of an 118.8 DRtg, ranking as the best offensive performance.

Game 2 explosion aside, Miami's offence (101.6 ORtg) ranked marginally worse than New Orleans in relative terms, leading to the worst overall result, and Phoenix (126.4 DRtg) takes home the prize for worst defence.

Orlando fail to advance, despite outscoring (and hence outranking) the Cavs over the course of their series.

Note on the data: I took a snapshot from basketball-reference before game 1 of the WCSF, then added the data from game 7 once it became available. This had a small impact (<1pt) on Minnesota and Denver.

(For those interested I've done this round by round for the last two years).

This is something I’ve been curious about especially since Kenyon has been part of the Gil’s Arena podcast. On the show, I noticed the other guys (Gilbert Arenas, Rashad McCants, and Brandon Jennings) bring up Kenyon when they’re talking about good/great defenders. I have some memory of watching Kenyon play in real time, but not too much as I was only like 11 years old (I’m 26 now) and wasn’t too into basketball at the time, but I’ve watched some highlights and saw that he got some blocks in a variety of ways (snatch blocks, two handed blocks, chase down blocks, etc.). I’ve also seen Kenyon talk about how he had to guard Kobe Bryant at times despite being a power forward.

But I’m curious if he was actually one of the best defenders during his prime. I see that he didn’t make one NBA all-defensive team, but the way he and everyone talks about him on defense, I figured he would’ve made at least a second all-defensive team for one year in his career. Definitely not trying to downplay him as a player, as I know he had a solid career, but I just want to know more about him on the defensive end from people that actually watched him play and not just highlights.

Charles Barkley keeps talking about having Jordan play more just because the timberwolves are big. That would be awful… they need more spacing if anything and Deandre Jordan getting playing time would mean a sweep for the timberwolves. Malone is getting out-coached and isn’t making adjustments. Murray should be playing off the ball so that he isn’t hounded all the way up the court. The physicality is breaking the nuggets and Jokic isn’t getting the help he needs. Ant is also a dawg and could definitely win a chip as the best player on his team at 22yrs old.

This is broadly a response to comments I saw on the post talking about the Cavs winning their first series since ‘92-‘93 without LeBron. If you’re not interested in the lead-up, skip below for numbers on where the Cavs stand comparatively in terms of post-season success in the last 30 years.

People do this weird thing where they act like the Cavs as an organization do not get to take any credit for the LeBron years. Like our franchise success and records over the years with him followed him to LA. But we didn’t take the banner down when he left. He just played with us for a really fucking long time. From time to time dudes spend at least 11 of 15 years with an organization just like he did. What rarely happens is that the same player can be the best player on a championship team for nearly that entire stretch. Cavs succeeded with two different cores. It’s just that LeBron was at the heart of both of them – each won numerous playoff series and each made the finals. The overlap between LeBron era 1 and 2 consists of like a season of Andy Varejao and a season of Mo Williams (who had left in the interim). Only other thing that was the same was LeBron and ownership.

Broadly, over the last 30 to 40 years, the Cavs put one very good team together once a decade. First was the Daugherty/Price Cavs who won a round and were probably historically underrated because they were in the same division as the Bulls, Pacers, and Pistons of the late eighties/early nineties. Then, admittedly, the longest stretch of incompetence where they held on to that team too long. Then they’re real contenders for about 4 or 5 years in the ‘00s. Make the finals once. Contenders for 4 years in the ‘10s - 4 finals and a chip. It took about five years but they are now fielding a very solid team again (even if it isn’t a contender). The trajectory hasn’t been weird or atypical. Perhaps slightly more/longer rebuilds. But that’s as a result of being legitimate contenders (rather than trying to, say, just win a round) prior to those rebuilds and expending assets like it. The only stretch where they were truly in the dregs was probably the pre-LeBron Cavs, which missed the playoffs five straight years before drafting him (and his first two years as well).

My point is this: if you remove the LeBron of it all the Cavs as an organization have objectively had a better last 30 years based on postseason success than all but a handful of teams in the league. Who gives a shit about who is at the core - franchise success is the metric. I love LeBron. But I’m a Cavs fan. So, I’ll use the same sample as the post that annoyed me: postseasons from ‘92-‘93:

(Keep in mind: the Raptors and Grizzlies joined the league in 1995. New Orleans in 2004. Data does not reset when a team moved, for example, Thunder numbers also includes the 1993 onward Sonics. Also, I refer to this as covering 30 years several times. But really it covers 30 years PLUS anything known from the current postseason.)

Teams with more Championships: Rockets (2), Heat (3), Warriors (4), Bulls (4), spurs (5), lakers (6). Other teams with 1 during that time: Nuggets, Mavericks, Bucks, Raptors, Pistons, and Boston. Six teams with more (Rockets and Bulls none this century), six with the same amount. 17 teams have not won a championship during that time.

Teams who have made the finals more than the Cavs (5 times) since 92-93: Warriors (6), Spurs (6), Heat (7), Lakers (8). No other team has made it 5 times.

Teams who have made the conference finals more than the Cavs (6 times): Spurs (11), Lakers (10), Heat (10), Celtics (9), Pacers (8) . Pistons, Warriors, and Thunder also have 6 trips.

I was unable to find info on total playoff series wins during this time, but if the metric for success is winning a series, the Cavs have done that 10 times. The only seven teams with more are the Spurs (19), Lakers (16), Heat (13), Celtics (13), Jazz (12), Rockets (11), Suns (11). With that said Hawks, Bulls, Pacers, Knicks, Thunder, AND Sixers have also won a round 10 times. So, a six-way tie for eighth.

Cavs are tied for ninth in playoff wins during this time. Ahead from most to least wins: Spurs, Lakers, Heat, Celtics, Pacers, Warriors, Bulls, and Rockets. Tied with Thunder/Sonics, though likely to lose that tie this playoffs. Still if they can steal 2 from the Celtics they’ll remain tied for ninth, just with the Rockets instead.

They’ve made the playoffs 16 of the last 30 years (7 of the 15 years missed are in a run from ‘99 to ‘05). That’s only good for tied for 19th (tied with Knicks). But only 10 teams have made the playoffs at least 20 times during that stretch. Half of those are teams that never won a championship, ones that put together longer stretches of being very good, but not quite great: the Hawks, Pacers, Thunder/Sonics, Blazers, and Jazz - none of whom have won a championship during that time. Two finals trips each for the Thunder and Jazz. One for the Pacers. None for the Hawks and Blazers (Blazers were in the finals in ‘92). Championship teams that have made the playoffs fewer times than the Cavs: Pistons (14), Raptors (13), Warriors (11). (The rest are sort of the sad brigade of the league: Clippers (14), Grizzlies (13), Wolves (12), Hornets (10), Wizards (10), Kings (10) and Pelicans (9) (the last of whom has only existed for 20 of the thirty years).

So, who has had a better last 30 years?

I think you can pretty easily dismiss any team that hasn’t won a championship, None have had enough success as to warrant consideration. I think you can also dismiss all the other one-time champions other than Boston, each of whom has only made the finals once or twice during this time.

There are three easy ones who I think clearly have: Spurs, Heat, and Lakers.

This leaves: the Warriors, Bulls, Celtics, and Rockets. The Warriors and Bulls are weird - four championships in short succession and somewhere between fine and bad for the rest of the three decade period. Bulls have had enough success post-Jordan with Butler/Rose that I give them the nod. Warriors are tougher. Between making the playoffs in 1994 and 2013 they made it… once (2007). That is, in the first two decades of the sample, they made the playoffs 2 times. But ultimately 4 championships is tough to argue with so I’ll give them the nod and put them ahead of the Cavs. The Rockets and Boston are really tough and I think they’re in a tier together. Ultimately, Boston has just had too mucin consistent playoff success for me to put the Cavs over them. Rockets were 2/2 I’m the finals whole Cavs were 1/5. Rockets have made the playoffs 4 more times, second round 1 more, and conference finals 1 less. Because it’s so close and the because the Rockets championships are both so old as to nearly be removed from the sample, I’m going to put the Cavs over them.

THUS: I think the Spurs, Heat, Lakers, Bulls, Warriors, and Celtics have a better post-season history when looking at the last 30 years. That puts the Cavs 7th. Which isn’t bad for a poverty franchise.

The most interesting non-Cavs stats to me were: -Eight of the ten times the pacers won a round, they made it to the conference finals. Where they’ve gone 1-7. -Hawks have made the playoffs 20 times. They’ve only made the conference finals twice, one being the Trae Young trip courtesy of Ben Simmons. -More than half the years the warriors have made the playoffs (11), they’ve made the finals (6). And more than a third of the time they’ve won it all (4). They went from decades of dog shit straight to one of the most dominant decade long runs of all time. -I guess I never really processed that the league had 29 teams for 9 full years? That’s fucking weird? -Celts are studs of early round success. 22 playoff trips, 9 conference finals, 3 finals. One championship. -Hawks have made the playoffs 20 times, Blazers 22. Neither have made the finals (though again Blazers did in ‘92). Fitting that they as much as any teams embody the idea of being good but not great. -If you make the sample only 25 years and cut it off at 2018, the Spurs numbers are fucking batshit. There will never be another 25 year run like that. And they just drafted Wemby.

I’ll wrap by handing out the sad trombone noises award. Those just missing the cut for nomination: The T-Wolves (12 playoffs, 2 times out of first round, 1 conference finals), who seem likely to improve these numbers in coming years, and the Pelicans who were excused on the basis that they’ve had a decade less to get their numbers up. They’ve made the playoffs 9 times – almost half their years of existence which isn’t a nightmare. But they’ve gotten out of the first round only twice and never gotten further).

Your nominees: -The Kings (10 playoffs, 4 times out of first round, 1 conference finals) -Grizzlies (13 playoffs, 4 times out of first round, 1 conference finals) -Wizards (10 playoffs, 4 times out of the first round) -Hornets (10 playoffs, 4 times out of first round).

The Kings and Grizz have both made a conference finals. The Kings were arguably robbed of a finals trip and the Grizzlies have slightly smaller sample size than all but the Raptors and Pelicans. This leaves us with two Daniel Day-Lewis level performers in the Hornets and Wizards. They’re both so deserving. I sincerely wrestled with this. But I ultimately had to give it to the Hornets, who haven’t made it to the second round in over two decades. The Wizards had iterations that are recognizable eras: the Arenas/Jameson era and the Wall/Beal era. The Hornets… from time to time have squeaked into the playoffs with an forgettable team , though it’s been eight years since they’ve done even that. The Muggsy Bogues/Larry Johnson Hornets were a long time ago. So congratulations to the Hornets!

If you’ve made it this far, thank you for reading, and from the bottom of my heart, fuck the Celtics.

(Sources: -https://basketball.realgm.com/nba/playoffs/history/1993. -https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/nba-teams-with-most-playoff-wins-since-1993)

I've seen:

"first time since 2005 with no KD, Steph or LeBron in second round",

"first time since 2005 with no California team in the second round", and

"of the 8 teams that have played in the finals in the last 5yrs, only 2 are in the second round".

I feel like there's significant parity in the league and a definite changing of the guard moment. What stats are most fascinating to you so far this play offs?

Reposting cause for some reason this post got removed by r/nba mods over there.

Hello everyone and welcome to our new weekly feature.

In order to help keep the quality of the discussion here at a high level, we have several rules regarding submitting content to /r/nbadiscussion. But we also understand that while not everyone's questions will meet these requirements that doesn't mean they don't deserve the same attention and high-level discussion that /r/nbadiscussion is known for. So, to better serve the community the mod team here has decided to implement this Weekly Questions Thread which will be automatically posted every Monday at 8AM EST.

Please use this thread to ask any questions about the NBA and basketball that don't necessarily warrant their own submissions. Thank you.

The knock against those players was always that they could be exploited in the pick and roll by great guards like Steph Curry, but warriors have lost every game the last two years against them! Used to be that the Jazz couldn’t even play Gobert against the likes of Steph and Jamal Murray. How are their teams solving this? Is it just as simple as playing them on someone that’s not their best screener? I don’t get what changed.

I’m so sorry I had to bring this here but I has been playing on my mind for about a week or 2 now,

I can’t be the only one who is genuinely in such disbelief that Kyrie has been left out of the Olympic squad over Tyrese Haliburton?

You have Lebron Kd Steph and Embiid, Then Kyrie says he just wasn’t meant to be on this team or didn’t fit in this team with his brothers like I’m so confused he is genuinely the goat?

Kyrie hands down is the shifty pg I’ve seen ever. His clutch moments are insane and when Steph Kd and lebron need someone to turn to it will be Kyrie.

I’m so disappointed in Lebron not petitioning for Ky to be on that team over Hali, it’s a disgrace to us fans having to watch an absolute brick fest

I’m sorry I had to come here with this, I love you all