NBA Season 2021-22

[celticsclay]

I'm pretty sure there was someone on this site arguing a couple of months back that the Bulls were a real threat because DeMar had grown as a player.  This was the new and improved DeMar we were seeing in the regular season, not Toronto DeMar.


Sure looked like the same old DeMar DeRozan to me in the playoffs.


Obviously the Bulls had a ton of injuries causing them to go out with a whimper, not laying that all on DeMar, but he still sucked for the series, except for Game 2.

As you acknowledge, there were huge injuries. He was playing his best when ball was healthy because lonzo shot 42% on 7.5 three pointers again. Think about that for a minute. Then you add in a banged up/not playing Caruso and then add on top of it lavine and it becomes a downright laughable argument. Let’s not discount an 82 game season because the rest of the guard rotation was out. Heck curry and Durant have recently struggled in similar situations. Man has improved every year and was awesome this year. I applaud him.

I’ll also add that Milwaukee was a tough draw but a healthy Caruso, lavine and ball this team is way better.

What's the laughable argument?

That he took 10 shots tonight?  Or 9 in Game 3? Went 6 for 25 in Game 1?  I don't care how many injuries a team has, this is not what I expect from a "superstar".  If the dude can't get shots because other players are out, he's just not that great.

And definitely not due to Lonzo.  Lonzo went out in mid-January, while DeMar had his best month in February (34.2 ppg)

The more guys that are out, the more shots I expect someone like DeMar to take.  Compare it to last year with the Celtics.  Brown's out, Walker's out, Time Lord's out.  Did Tatum take more or less shots?  He took a lot more (about 5 more per game if you either take out or adjust for Game 2 when he only played 1 half due to an eye injury).

I'm not saying I expect DeMar to lead Chicago to victory.  It's a tough match up that the Bulls would probably struggle with even if healthy.  But DeMar's always been fool's gold in my book.  One of the reason's he looked good this year is he was taking more shots and his usage is up.  Did he get better, ya a little bit.  But is he a different player, not really.

You can judge him by the regular season all you want.  I'll continue to judge him by what he shows in the playoffs. 

It's like if Ben Simmons comes out next year, has his best statistical season ever, it would be fair to wait until the playoffs to really judge him, right?

He had seven assists because their whole defense was focused on him starting alongside dosumo and javonte green. Sure he could have gone 7-29 and had more points but what does that prove? You take away an entire teams guard rotation what do they do? If we are down smart, brown, white I don’t think Tatum would have pretty stats (especially against the bucks that can throw Giannis on him).

[pokeKingCurtis]

I'm pretty sure there was someone on this site arguing a couple of months back that the Bulls were a real threat because DeMar had grown as a player.  This was the new and improved DeMar we were seeing in the regular season, not Toronto DeMar.


Sure looked like the same old DeMar DeRozan to me in the playoffs.


Obviously the Bulls had a ton of injuries causing them to go out with a whimper, not laying that all on DeMar, but he still sucked for the series, except for Game 2.

As you acknowledge, there were huge injuries. He was playing his best when ball was healthy because lonzo shot 42% on 7.5 three pointers again. Think about that for a minute. Then you add in a banged up/not playing Caruso and then add on top of it lavine and it becomes a downright laughable argument. Let’s not discount an 82 game season because the rest of the guard rotation was out. Heck curry and Durant have recently struggled in similar situations. Man has improved every year and was awesome this year. I applaud him.

I’ll also add that Milwaukee was a tough draw but a healthy Caruso, lavine and ball this team is way better.

What's the laughable argument?

That he took 10 shots tonight?  Or 9 in Game 3? Went 6 for 25 in Game 1?  I don't care how many injuries a team has, this is not what I expect from a "superstar".  If the dude can't get shots because other players are out, he's just not that great.

And definitely not due to Lonzo.  Lonzo went out in mid-January, while DeMar had his best month in February (34.2 ppg)

The more guys that are out, the more shots I expect someone like DeMar to take.  Compare it to last year with the Celtics.  Brown's out, Walker's out, Time Lord's out.  Did Tatum take more or less shots?  He took a lot more (about 5 more per game if you either take out or adjust for Game 2 when he only played 1 half due to an eye injury).

I'm not saying I expect DeMar to lead Chicago to victory.  It's a tough match up that the Bulls would probably struggle with even if healthy.  But DeMar's always been fool's gold in my book.  One of the reason's he looked good this year is he was taking more shots and his usage is up.  Did he get better, ya a little bit.  But is he a different player, not really.

You can judge him by the regular season all you want.  I'll continue to judge him by what he shows in the playoffs. 

It's like if Ben Simmons comes out next year, has his best statistical season ever, it would be fair to wait until the playoffs to really judge him, right?

He had seven assists because their whole defense was focused on him starting alongside dosumo and javonte green. Sure he could have gone 7-29 and had more points but what does that prove? You take away an entire teams guard rotation what do they do? If we are down smart, brown, white I don’t think Tatum would have pretty stats (especially against the bucks that can throw Giannis on him).

I'll add to this. Tatum can probably still do more, but that's why one's a superstar and the other "just" an all star.

And it's fine - if Derozan can fill all the Bulls' holes, then good on them. Too late for him to be the guy anyway.

Ben Simmons likewise if he could "just" facilitate Durant and play phenomenal D, that's found money for the Nets.

[Roy H.]

I'm pretty sure there was someone on this site arguing a couple of months back that the Bulls were a real threat because DeMar had grown as a player.  This was the new and improved DeMar we were seeing in the regular season, not Toronto DeMar.


Sure looked like the same old DeMar DeRozan to me in the playoffs.


Obviously the Bulls had a ton of injuries causing them to go out with a whimper, not laying that all on DeMar, but he still sucked for the series, except for Game 2.

As you acknowledge, there were huge injuries. He was playing his best when ball was healthy because lonzo shot 42% on 7.5 three pointers again. Think about that for a minute. Then you add in a banged up/not playing Caruso and then add on top of it lavine and it becomes a downright laughable argument. Let’s not discount an 82 game season because the rest of the guard rotation was out. Heck curry and Durant have recently struggled in similar situations. Man has improved every year and was awesome this year. I applaud him.

I’ll also add that Milwaukee was a tough draw but a healthy Caruso, lavine and ball this team is way better.

What's the laughable argument?

That he took 10 shots tonight?  Or 9 in Game 3? Went 6 for 25 in Game 1?  I don't care how many injuries a team has, this is not what I expect from a "superstar".  If the dude can't get shots because other players are out, he's just not that great.

And definitely not due to Lonzo.  Lonzo went out in mid-January, while DeMar had his best month in February (34.2 ppg)

The more guys that are out, the more shots I expect someone like DeMar to take.  Compare it to last year with the Celtics.  Brown's out, Walker's out, Time Lord's out.  Did Tatum take more or less shots?  He took a lot more (about 5 more per game if you either take out or adjust for Game 2 when he only played 1 half due to an eye injury).

I'm not saying I expect DeMar to lead Chicago to victory.  It's a tough match up that the Bulls would probably struggle with even if healthy.  But DeMar's always been fool's gold in my book.  One of the reason's he looked good this year is he was taking more shots and his usage is up.  Did he get better, ya a little bit.  But is he a different player, not really.

You can judge him by the regular season all you want.  I'll continue to judge him by what he shows in the playoffs. 

It's like if Ben Simmons comes out next year, has his best statistical season ever, it would be fair to wait until the playoffs to really judge him, right?

How would you compare DeRozan's play with Durant's in the first round?

[celticsclay]

I'm pretty sure there was someone on this site arguing a couple of months back that the Bulls were a real threat because DeMar had grown as a player.  This was the new and improved DeMar we were seeing in the regular season, not Toronto DeMar.


Sure looked like the same old DeMar DeRozan to me in the playoffs.


Obviously the Bulls had a ton of injuries causing them to go out with a whimper, not laying that all on DeMar, but he still sucked for the series, except for Game 2.

As you acknowledge, there were huge injuries. He was playing his best when ball was healthy because lonzo shot 42% on 7.5 three pointers again. Think about that for a minute. Then you add in a banged up/not playing Caruso and then add on top of it lavine and it becomes a downright laughable argument. Let’s not discount an 82 game season because the rest of the guard rotation was out. Heck curry and Durant have recently struggled in similar situations. Man has improved every year and was awesome this year. I applaud him.

I’ll also add that Milwaukee was a tough draw but a healthy Caruso, lavine and ball this team is way better.

What's the laughable argument?

That he took 10 shots tonight?  Or 9 in Game 3? Went 6 for 25 in Game 1?  I don't care how many injuries a team has, this is not what I expect from a "superstar".  If the dude can't get shots because other players are out, he's just not that great.

And definitely not due to Lonzo.  Lonzo went out in mid-January, while DeMar had his best month in February (34.2 ppg)

The more guys that are out, the more shots I expect someone like DeMar to take.  Compare it to last year with the Celtics.  Brown's out, Walker's out, Time Lord's out.  Did Tatum take more or less shots?  He took a lot more (about 5 more per game if you either take out or adjust for Game 2 when he only played 1 half due to an eye injury).

I'm not saying I expect DeMar to lead Chicago to victory.  It's a tough match up that the Bulls would probably struggle with even if healthy.  But DeMar's always been fool's gold in my book.  One of the reason's he looked good this year is he was taking more shots and his usage is up.  Did he get better, ya a little bit.  But is he a different player, not really.

You can judge him by the regular season all you want.  I'll continue to judge him by what he shows in the playoffs. 

It's like if Ben Simmons comes out next year, has his best statistical season ever, it would be fair to wait until the playoffs to really judge him, right?

How would you compare DeRozan's play with Durant's in the first round?

I would say this is a pretty good point if you meant to defend demar who had much less help offensively especially once Levine was out already missing ball. They both took about 20 shots a game and Durant shot a little worse. They both had one really big game. Demars team actually won a game. Durant average like 5 points more almost exclusively from foul shots and low volume on threes (demar still averaged a respectable 6 foul shots a game. They were pretty similar on assists and rebounds. Another killer was Durant averaging 5 turnovers a game to demars 2. I guess I would say maybe even a slight edge to demar given his team actually won a game. Again the bashing off demar just doesn’t hold water.

[Phantom255x]

All I have to say for today:

[Moranis]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

[Phantom255x]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

Not necessarily denying what you're saying, but that one game by KD did help his numbers. He had 39 points in Game 4. Without that, he's only like 1 PPG better than DeRozan.

But yeah, there's a reason no one really believed in the Bulls. They were something like 1-14 against teams above .600 in the regular season, and while they definitely played MIL tough early in the series, there's a reason they got smacked the next three games after even with Middleton going out. Not all DeRozan's fault, though it is another season where DeRozan doesn't do much to really prove people wrong when it comes to his playoff production (or lack thereof)   

[Roy H.]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

At the same time, DeRozan's team won a game, and he had the best single performance.  Durant also was a turnover machine.  Per minute / possession, DeRozan outrebounded him, which is just sad for a guy of Durant's height and athleticism, and averaged more steals and blocks, as well.  That's despite Durant playing next to Kyrie, while DeRozan faced the entire Bucks defense for much of the series because Lavine was injured.

It doesn't really matter who was better between Durant or DeRozan.  Rather, it's the principle of the argument.  If DeRozan can't be considered a superstar because he was too passive or because he underperformed in this playoff series, doesn't the same criteria get applied to Durant (and Kyrie, as well)?  Because, using the same standard, Durant would no longer qualify as a superstar.  That would seem to make the standard wrong, or else throw the definition of "superstar" into question.

[kraidstar]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

At the same time, DeRozan's team won a game, and he had the best single performance.  Durant also was a turnover machine.  Per minute / possession, DeRozan outrebounded him, which is just sad for a guy of Durant's height and athleticism, and averaged more steals and blocks, as well.  That's despite Durant playing next to Kyrie, while DeRozan faced the entire Bucks defense for much of the series because Lavine was injured.

It doesn't really matter who was better between Durant or DeRozan.  Rather, it's the principle of the argument.  If DeRozan can't be considered a superstar because he was too passive or because he underperformed in this playoff series, doesn't the same criteria get applied to Durant (and Kyrie, as well)?  Because, using the same standard, Durant would no longer qualify as a superstar.  That would seem to make the standard wrong, or else throw the definition of "superstar" into question.

I think our D is going to make a lot of superstars look bad this postseason Roy

[celticsclay]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

At the same time, DeRozan's team won a game, and he had the best single performance.  Durant also was a turnover machine.  Per minute / possession, DeRozan outrebounded him, which is just sad for a guy of Durant's height and athleticism, and averaged more steals and blocks, as well.  That's despite Durant playing next to Kyrie, while DeRozan faced the entire Bucks defense for much of the series because Lavine was injured.

It doesn't really matter who was better between Durant or DeRozan.  Rather, it's the principle of the argument.  If DeRozan can't be considered a superstar because he was too passive or because he underperformed in this playoff series, doesn't the same criteria get applied to Durant (and Kyrie, as well)?  Because, using the same standard, Durant would no longer qualify as a superstar.  That would seem to make the standard wrong, or else throw the definition of "superstar" into question.

This is a hundred percent my point Roy. Also can we please stop with this just ignoring the stat that makes one player look worse when comparing to try and make a point. Tell the whole story.Like Durant averaging averaging 5.3 turnovers a game was a huge part of the problem (this figure may lead league in playoffs) Any coach would rather have a 4 less points if it meant 3 less turnovers. A substantial amount of all turnovers are live ball turnovers that lead to very high value possessions and also creates fouls and foul trouble for your team(lot of fouls on breaks and take fouls). The fact that Durant had this many and demar had so little shows he was actually handling being the entire focus of the defense a lot better (and their assists were similar).

[Moranis]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

At the same time, DeRozan's team won a game, and he had the best single performance.  Durant also was a turnover machine.  Per minute / possession, DeRozan outrebounded him, which is just sad for a guy of Durant's height and athleticism, and averaged more steals and blocks, as well.  That's despite Durant playing next to Kyrie, while DeRozan faced the entire Bucks defense for much of the series because Lavine was injured.

It doesn't really matter who was better between Durant or DeRozan.  Rather, it's the principle of the argument.  If DeRozan can't be considered a superstar because he was too passive or because he underperformed in this playoff series, doesn't the same criteria get applied to Durant (and Kyrie, as well)?  Because, using the same standard, Durant would no longer qualify as a superstar.  That would seem to make the standard wrong, or else throw the definition of "superstar" into question.

But Durant is a superstar and DeRozan isn't.  The argument was that despite DeRozan's improved regular season he was still just the same old non-superstar DeRozan he has always been.  DeRozan's poor series doesn't change that fact nor does it change Durant's status as a superstar, because Durant is actually a superstar.  We have years of evidence to support both those positions and the collected national responses to those poor series further supports that as well i.e. Durant is getting killed because he is a superstar and superstars aren't supposed to play that poorly, while DeRozan isn't getting killed because he isn't a superstar. 

[Birdman]

No one on these sports shows are talking bout how bad Trae Young played against Miami

[liam]

No one on these sports shows are talking bout how bad Trae Young played against Miami

Was that the 10 spot against the one?

[Phantom255x]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

At the same time, DeRozan's team won a game, and he had the best single performance.  Durant also was a turnover machine.  Per minute / possession, DeRozan outrebounded him, which is just sad for a guy of Durant's height and athleticism, and averaged more steals and blocks, as well.  That's despite Durant playing next to Kyrie, while DeRozan faced the entire Bucks defense for much of the series because Lavine was injured.

It doesn't really matter who was better between Durant or DeRozan.  Rather, it's the principle of the argument.  If DeRozan can't be considered a superstar because he was too passive or because he underperformed in this playoff series, doesn't the same criteria get applied to Durant (and Kyrie, as well)?  Because, using the same standard, Durant would no longer qualify as a superstar.  That would seem to make the standard wrong, or else throw the definition of "superstar" into question.

But Durant is a superstar and DeRozan isn't.  The argument was that despite DeRozan's improved regular season he was still just the same old non-superstar DeRozan he has always been.  DeRozan's poor series doesn't change that fact nor does it change Durant's status as a superstar, because Durant is actually a superstar.  We have years of evidence to support both those positions and the collected national responses to those poor series further supports that as well i.e. Durant is getting killed because he is a superstar and superstars aren't supposed to play that poorly, while DeRozan isn't getting killed because he isn't a superstar.

I'm confused. Who is saying KD isn't a superstar and that DeRozan is at that level?? I haven't really seen people doing that not even in the national media

[Roy H.]

As bad as Durant was he still outperformed DeRozan.  And Durant is getting crushed for how poorly he played while no one has even paid attention to DeRozan.  They are just in a different class of player

Durant - 26.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.3 apg
DeRozan - 20.8 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.8 apg

DeRozan did shoot better from the field, but was 0-9 from 3 and shot less FT's while playing 1 extra game so Durant's TS% was 52.6 to  48.1 for DeRozan.  Durant had a higher GmSc as well.

Durant was awful, but he was better than DeRozan.  That is how bad DeRozan was.

And for the record, this is why I never believed in Chicago and pretty clearly said they weren't any good.  Lonzo Ball wasn't going to save them either.  They just don't have a top tier talent, and you need those guys when the going gets tough.

At the same time, DeRozan's team won a game, and he had the best single performance.  Durant also was a turnover machine.  Per minute / possession, DeRozan outrebounded him, which is just sad for a guy of Durant's height and athleticism, and averaged more steals and blocks, as well.  That's despite Durant playing next to Kyrie, while DeRozan faced the entire Bucks defense for much of the series because Lavine was injured.

It doesn't really matter who was better between Durant or DeRozan.  Rather, it's the principle of the argument.  If DeRozan can't be considered a superstar because he was too passive or because he underperformed in this playoff series, doesn't the same criteria get applied to Durant (and Kyrie, as well)?  Because, using the same standard, Durant would no longer qualify as a superstar.  That would seem to make the standard wrong, or else throw the definition of "superstar" into question.

But Durant is a superstar and DeRozan isn't.  The argument was that despite DeRozan's improved regular season he was still just the same old non-superstar DeRozan he has always been.  DeRozan's poor series doesn't change that fact nor does it change Durant's status as a superstar, because Durant is actually a superstar.  We have years of evidence to support both those positions and the collected national responses to those poor series further supports that as well i.e. Durant is getting killed because he is a superstar and superstars aren't supposed to play that poorly, while DeRozan isn't getting killed because he isn't a superstar.

This is the argument I'm responding to:

That he took 10 shots tonight?  Or 9 in Game 3? Went 6 for 25 in Game 1?  I don't care how many injuries a team has, this is not what I expect from a "superstar".  If the dude can't get shots because other players are out, he's just not that great.

Wouldn't that also suggest that Durant isn't a superstar and is "not that great".