Jump to content

Sports: NBA 2006-2007


Recommended Posts

OK, the Warriors play some D. Definitely more than sack o' tomato last night, at least in the first half. Still Kings scored 53 in the first half and 105 in the game. I understand if GSW score quickly that provides more opportunity for both teams to score. Kings shot 43% from the field, and a woeful 1/17 from 3-point range. Was that latter number due to great perimeter D by Warriors, or were Kings players open and firing up bricks? [As I said, I only caught the first half.]

Those two teams played even after the first quarter, and scored over 100 points. Fast-paced means more chances, but is allowing 100+ points, especially when GSW not extending their lead, indicative of great D?

One thing is for sure. Baron Davis appears to be a man on a mission with something to prove, and looks good with a few of the lbs shed. And the young players look like they can play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 636
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think as far as D, opponents' shooting percentage is a better indicator than opponents' point scored. (Though they are frequently correlated.) Now, I have no clue how well Sac shot last night.

I do know that the Warriors are not a very good defensive team in general. But like all Nellie teams, that doesn't matter as long as they can score more than their opponent. It's never good enough to win a championship, but an 8 seed would be heaven at this point.

Guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, the Warriors play some D. Definitely more than sack o' tomato last night, at least in the first half. Still Kings scored 53 in the first half and 105 in the game. I understand if GSW score quickly that provides more opportunity for both teams to score. Kings shot 43% from the field, and a woeful 1/17 from 3-point range. Was that latter number due to great perimeter D by Warriors, or were Kings players open and firing up bricks? [As I said, I only caught the first half.]

I'd say it was a combination of both. The Warriors have impressed me with the effort they make in running at shooters beyond the arc. Nobody can shut those opportunities down all the time, there's too much space out there. A team that penetrates well and kicks it out to shooters (as opposed to a team like last season's Warriors, who passed it around the perimiter all the time) is going to be hard to shut down.

Those two teams played even after the first quarter, and scored over 100 points. Fast-paced means more chances, but is allowing 100+ points, especially when GSW not extending their lead, indicative of great D?

I'm not saying the W's played "great" D. I was just a bit annoyed by the notion that they don't play "any" D. I've been watching them closely at the defensive end, because I want to see how they're progressing in that department, knowing that they need to play good D in order to get into their running game. I'm seeing a lot of effort and some outstanding defensive plays. I think their transition defense (relying on their young legs and quickness) can be pretty good. The halfcourt set defense is a slightly different story. They need to improve in terms of blocking off, and anticipating the opportunity for defensive rebounds. Monta Ellis and Andris Biedrins are still both quite inexperienced of course, so I expect players like that to improve a lot as this season progresses. But they're showing me some excellent skills at times.

One thing is for sure. Baron Davis appears to be a man on a mission with something to prove, and looks good with a few of the lbs shed.

He couldn't have played much better last night, as Steve Kerr pointed out. I think Baron tends to be pretty streaky, though, so let's see if his offseason conditioning will allow him to improve his consistency. I forget which game it was, but just a few games back, I was thinking that he looked pretty out of sync. Sometimes he tries to do too much himself, even when he's not having a particularly good night.

I think as far as D, opponents' shooting percentage is a better indicator than opponents' point scored.

I guess that's logical, but then again, in any given game, it might be very misleading (if the opponent was simply not shooting well, even when getting open looks).

I do know that the Warriors are not a very good defensive team in general.

I guess I'd still have to agree, although I do think they're improving (experience can only help, and with a veteran coach, they should improve even more).

But like all Nellie teams, that doesn't matter as long as they can score more than their opponent.

True- that's the bottom line. I think it was Reggie Miller who mentioned that, and he added that come playoff time (should the W's be there), it would be much more difficult to run, and they would have to be better defensively.

It's never good enough to win a championship, but an 8 seed would be heaven at this point.

Right. The playoffs is the goal. At any rate, I love to watch high-scoring games, and teams that run, so this should be a fun year regardless of whether the goal is reached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I think we all agree. It was my first time seeing the Warriors in quite a while.

To answer Guy's question, overall Kings shot 43.2% (35/81). From 2-point range they shot 53.1% (34/64).

It should fun to watch the GSW improve this year, and I'd say they definitely have a shot at a playoff spot, even in the west. And they're doing it primarily with young players who will be interesting to watch develop.

And I'm definitely on board for the proposition that all that matters is scoring more points than your opponent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it was a nail-biter! Nash is too good. The Jazz though, are freaking unbelievable. They deserve whatever props and power rankings that they have been given to this point. I knew that I stayed a Jazz fan for all these years for a reason.

With Baron Davis injured, the Warriors are going to get creaaaaaaaaaaaamed by the Suns. :(

Guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it was a nail-biter! Nash is too good. The Jazz though, are freaking unbelievable. They deserve whatever props and power rankings that they have been given to this point. I knew that I stayed a Jazz fan for all these years for a reason.

First Baron's injury, and now Monta's. Nice game by the W's.

Yeah, the Jazz are sick. I'm not sure if they will manage to stay ahead of the Spurs, but this is a very good team.

It looks like we are back to the days of a dominant western conference and an anemic eastern conference.

Guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got back from the Warriors-Jazz game. The Warriors kicked their butts (and in less than 100 pts)! Utah looked awful -- Kirilenko, Okur, and Boozer all had miserable games. Still, it's easy to see why they are so dominant -- they definitely have the sizeable, talented frontline.

Nice to see the W's snap their winning streak, even if it will resume on Monday against the Spurs.

When is Baron coming back? Who knows.

Guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big Ben and Skiles... who's gonna win that one? I think Ben got more than he bargained for when he left Detroit. He really should've stayed. Detroit is finally starting to figure out how to play without him and Nazr is playing really well (as is the rest of the starting five).

Warriors taking down Utah and the Spurs is pretty impressive. Anyone else feel sorry for Iverson? I mean, he's always had shitty teams, but for some reason I really feel for him this year. The guy plays his ass off and gets nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warriors taking down Utah and the Spurs is pretty impressive. Anyone else feel sorry for Iverson? I mean, he's always had shitty teams, but for some reason I really feel for him this year. The guy plays his ass off and gets nothing.

No - MUSICIANS play their asses off and get next to nothing. <_<

But at least I'm on a good team. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's any consolation to Iverson, I think most basketball fans understand how amazing it is that he is a dominant scorer at 6'1". He may never win a title, but I will always consider him one of the best offensive players I ever saw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's any consolation to Iverson, I think most basketball fans understand how amazing it is that he is a dominant scorer at 6'1". He may never win a title, but I will always consider him one of the best offensive players I ever saw.

He's very good, but I've always thought his poor shooting percentage was a mark against him.

Guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...