2024 NBA Season and Playoffs

[Roy H.]

Does anybody buy this?

Shaquille O’Neal says if it were acceptable to form a superteam during his time in the league, he would have signed with the Chicago Bulls to play alongside Michael Jordan. On an episode of The Big Podcast with Shaq, O’Neal explained how the league is different now compared to back in his day. “If we knew that was acceptable, probably a lot of us would have switched up,” O’Neal said. “If I knew that was acceptable I would have just went to Chicago. If I knew that was acceptable, I would have went and played with the Spurs. If I knew that was okay I would have went and played with a team that was almost there, like Utah.” –

This is not the first time that the Hall of Famer has brought up the Bulls or the Spurs when talking about this subject. O’Neal chose them as the teams he would have joined if he wanted to make a super team. “So, it’s supposed to be about competition. If I knew it was okay to join people, ... I would have joined the Bulls,” Shaq said on The Big Podcast. “I would have played with Mike (Jordan) and Scottie (Pippen) and then I would have left them and played in my hometown San Antonio with the Spurs. But, nah, I was like, nope. I want to beat all these guys.” – via Fade Away World

The reason that Shaq didn't join Chicago or San Antonio, I assume, is because they didn't have cap space when he was a free agent.  The Lakers did, plus they fit his "brand" at the time.

I think both things can be true. Like he probably did not join cause of salary but also didn’t ever think about it seriously because it was not a mindset back then. If it was more acceptable maybe he would have told a contender to move everyone and sign him and fill their team with vet mins but that didn’t really happen back then as a team building model right?

It did happen, though, which is the funny thing.  Tmac and Hill went to Orlando, and there was a lot of speculation they'd be able to team up with Duncan as one example.  An old Scottie Pippen left the Bulls to join an old Barkley and Olajuwon.  Guys forced trades to move to different teams (Mourning, Webber, Carter, etc.) 

I think Shaq may have been the first prime megastar to leave his team, but that has more to do with the difficulty of creating cap space and the rules that C21 mentioned.

[johnnygreen]

https://x.com/hpbasketball/status/1762858841669001530?s=46&t=lGU0TGXtwjkuVuoin6WTNw

Matt Moore’s season win projections. Has us at 65 wins, a whopping 12 (!) games over Cavs in the 2 spot and 5 games up on OKC in the West with 60 wins.

Have to say, though, this would be an awful playoff map for us. Philly with potentially Embiid in round 1, NYK or Miami in round 2, then likely Cleveland or Milwaukee in round 3.

If the Celtics are truly the best team in the league, then why should we be concerned with an 8th seed? Or any team in the East for that matter. Please don't give this team any excuse. The only drama in the East should be if they can go Fo' Fo' Fo'.

[Donoghus]

I don't know how the rest of you are feeling, but I have a feeling Embiid has called it on this season and is keeping it unofficial to avoid the depressing effect it would have on him and the team.

I have thought this all along. I do not expect we see him back this season. Philly is going nowhere and if they bring him back he will be gimpy and out of shape (he is always out of shape).

Yeah, his conditioning is not going to be great. 

Philly is going to be an issue next season.  I don't expect to have problems with them if the C's match up with them this spring.

[johnnygreen]

Hey Shaq, the 2004 Detroit Pistons agree you were never part of a super team, because they tend to win at least one title. So since that Pistons team did spank you in the Finals, are we not allowed to call that Lakers team a super team with the likes of you, Kobe, Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Horace Grant, etc?

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I don't know how the rest of you are feeling, but I have a feeling Embiid has called it on this season and is keeping it unofficial to avoid the depressing effect it would have on him and the team.

I have thought this all along. I do not expect we see him back this season. Philly is going nowhere and if they bring him back he will be gimpy and out of shape (he is always out of shape).

I also figured from the start that he wouldn't return.

As an aside, during last night's game I realized that Philly now has quite an extensive collection of guys, most of them recently acquired, who were or still are decent-to-good: Kyle Lowry, Buddy Hield, Nicolas Batum, Kelly Oubre, Cameron Payne, and Mo Bamba. Having all of those guys in their prime would make for a pretty good supporting cast; unfortunately for Philly, most of them are past their prime.

[Celtics2021]

https://x.com/hpbasketball/status/1762858841669001530?s=46&t=lGU0TGXtwjkuVuoin6WTNw

Matt Moore’s season win projections. Has us at 65 wins, a whopping 12 (!) games over Cavs in the 2 spot and 5 games up on OKC in the West with 60 wins.

Have to say, though, this would be an awful playoff map for us. Philly with potentially Embiid in round 1, NYK or Miami in round 2, then likely Cleveland or Milwaukee in round 3.

If the Celtics are truly the best team in the league, then why should we be concerned with an 8th seed? Or any team in the East for that matter. Please don't give this team any excuse. The only drama in the East should be if they can go Fo' Fo' Fo'.

I know I’m not concerned with the 8th seed, especially a hypothetical Philly team. This version of Philly has Embiid but despite having him lost the 7-8 game, meaning he’s not a game-changer in that stage of a recovery.  They’re not a threat over 7 games.

[Moranis]

They need to look at putting some metrics on the play in teams.  Overall record, how close they are to 7th and 8th, something because there is no way a team like the Hawks should be in the play in at 6 wins under .500 and 6.5 games out of 8th place.  Even the Bulls at 4 wins under .500 and 5.5 games from 8th shouldn't be in either.  Bad teams shouldn't get a chance at the playoffs

No they don’t.

Regardless of whether they should or shouldn't, they won't.  The play-in games generate revenue and some degree of fan interest, so they're here to stay.

They won't, but I just don't like the idea that a 30 win team can get lucky 2 nights and knock out a 40+ win team.  It might also make the 7th and 8th seed push till the very end to try and create enough of a gap to avoid a play in game or two

They absolutely should look at parameters. If the teams are close enough, then have it, if they aren't then don't. And you could have just 8 v 9 if only 1 team qualified.  Basketball is a sport decided by series, I just don't like the 1 and done model. It is too variable. It is why they went to a full 7 games formthe 1st round up from 3 and then 5. They didn't like the upsets a short series can provide, but now have a 1 and done with really bad teams. It just doesn't make sense.

[celticinorlando]

I prefer Miami to be the 6 seed so they have to go through the Cavs and Bucks to get to Boston.

[celticsclay]

Does anybody buy this?

Shaquille O’Neal says if it were acceptable to form a superteam during his time in the league, he would have signed with the Chicago Bulls to play alongside Michael Jordan. On an episode of The Big Podcast with Shaq, O’Neal explained how the league is different now compared to back in his day. “If we knew that was acceptable, probably a lot of us would have switched up,” O’Neal said. “If I knew that was acceptable I would have just went to Chicago. If I knew that was acceptable, I would have went and played with the Spurs. If I knew that was okay I would have went and played with a team that was almost there, like Utah.” –

This is not the first time that the Hall of Famer has brought up the Bulls or the Spurs when talking about this subject. O’Neal chose them as the teams he would have joined if he wanted to make a super team. “So, it’s supposed to be about competition. If I knew it was okay to join people, ... I would have joined the Bulls,” Shaq said on The Big Podcast. “I would have played with Mike (Jordan) and Scottie (Pippen) and then I would have left them and played in my hometown San Antonio with the Spurs. But, nah, I was like, nope. I want to beat all these guys.” – via Fade Away World

The reason that Shaq didn't join Chicago or San Antonio, I assume, is because they didn't have cap space when he was a free agent.  The Lakers did, plus they fit his "brand" at the time.

I think both things can be true. Like he probably did not join cause of salary but also didn’t ever think about it seriously because it was not a mindset back then. If it was more acceptable maybe he would have told a contender to move everyone and sign him and fill their team with vet mins but that didn’t really happen back then as a team building model right?

It did happen, though, which is the funny thing.  Tmac and Hill went to Orlando, and there was a lot of speculation they'd be able to team up with Duncan as one example.  An old Scottie Pippen left the Bulls to join an old Barkley and Olajuwon.  Guys forced trades to move to different teams (Mourning, Webber, Carter, etc.) 

I think Shaq may have been the first prime megastar to leave his team, but that has more to do with the difficulty of creating cap space and the rules that C21 mentioned.

I don't think these are very good examples. The old guys joining together towards end of careers has kind of been something that always happened. Barkley was 35 the one season he played with Pippen. Pippen was a very good defensive player still but averaged 14.5 points. Even Olajuwon was not a super star anymore (he made all-nba 3rd team that year and the other two did not make a team (though Pippen made all defensive team.) You are not the first person I have seen say it, but that has always struck as a very weird example people of an earlier superteam. (They also lost to the Lakers 3-1 in the first round).

If Duncan had joined Hill and Mcgrady that could have been a superteam. You also have to remember though McGrady was not a star when he signed with Orlando. He had finished 3rd in 6th man of the year before signing there and had averaged 15 points his final season in Toronto. Hill was a legit superstar when he signed.

I agree there is an element of "our era was better" when older guys talk about this, but I honestly believe it is also true when someone like Bird said he would never think about joining up with Magic when they were in their primes even if it had been possible from a salary cap perspective because he really did want to beat him. Whereas someone like Durant just wanted to get rings when he joined the warriors.

[celticsclay]

They need to look at putting some metrics on the play in teams.  Overall record, how close they are to 7th and 8th, something because there is no way a team like the Hawks should be in the play in at 6 wins under .500 and 6.5 games out of 8th place.  Even the Bulls at 4 wins under .500 and 5.5 games from 8th shouldn't be in either.  Bad teams shouldn't get a chance at the playoffs

No they don’t.

Regardless of whether they should or shouldn't, they won't.  The play-in games generate revenue and some degree of fan interest, so they're here to stay.

They won't, but I just don't like the idea that a 30 win team can get lucky 2 nights and knock out a 40+ win team.  It might also make the 7th and 8th seed push till the very end to try and create enough of a gap to avoid a play in game or two

They absolutely should look at parameters. If the teams are close enough, then have it, if they aren't then don't. And you could have just 8 v 9 if only 1 team qualified.  Basketball is a sport decided by series, I just don't like the 1 and done model. It is too variable. It is why they went to a full 7 games formthe 1st round up from 3 and then 5. They didn't like the upsets a short series can provide, but now have a 1 and done with really bad teams. It just doesn't make sense.

I totally agree with you on this. Especially with the variability the three point shot has introduced into single games.

[Kernewek]

They need to look at putting some metrics on the play in teams.  Overall record, how close they are to 7th and 8th, something because there is no way a team like the Hawks should be in the play in at 6 wins under .500 and 6.5 games out of 8th place.  Even the Bulls at 4 wins under .500 and 5.5 games from 8th shouldn't be in either.  Bad teams shouldn't get a chance at the playoffs

No they don’t.

Regardless of whether they should or shouldn't, they won't.  The play-in games generate revenue and some degree of fan interest, so they're here to stay.

They won't, but I just don't like the idea that a 30 win team can get lucky 2 nights and knock out a 40+ win team.  It might also make the 7th and 8th seed push till the very end to try and create enough of a gap to avoid a play in game or two

They absolutely should look at parameters. If the teams are close enough, then have it, if they aren't then don't. And you could have just 8 v 9 if only 1 team qualified.  Basketball is a sport decided by series, I just don't like the 1 and done model. It is too variable. It is why they went to a full 7 games formthe 1st round up from 3 and then 5. They didn't like the upsets a short series can provide, but now have a 1 and done with really bad teams. It just doesn't make sense.

I totally agree with you on this. Especially with the variability the three point shot has introduced into single games.

As a bit of a tangent here, the bolded is correct, but it's correct in exactly the opposite way that we often see it referenced in a basketball context - because some basketball writers and the like use words like 'variable' and 'variance' as synonyms for 'lower percentage' rather than what the terms actually refer to (this is specifically true of variance).

If team A shot from midrange every possession and made 50% of their shots, and Team B shoots a three every time and hits 33%, both teams are scoring the same numbers of points per possession, but the team that shoots from exclusively mid-range has a higher variance (because the variance we care about is derived from expected points per possession vs. attempted shots. You don't get extra points for a higher team FG%, but you do for shooting it from deep).

Or, in real-world terms, look at the game we played against the Wizards at the beginning of February - we outplayed them on both ends of the floor, but it was 'just' a four-point game because they shot (and hit) way more threes.

[Redz]

Halliburton utilizing Siakam amazingly

[bdm860]

Cavs choking one away against the Bulls in double OT.

Up 3 and fouled Derozen shooting a 3 with about 10 seconds left in OT (he made all 3 to tie).

Cavs then don't call a timeout (see Joe's not the only one, ha) and fail to score at the end of OT.

Bulls then actually look like a good team in double OT and looks like they're going to beat the Cavs now.

[Celtics2021]

Cavs choking one away against the Bulls in double OT.
e
Up 3 and fouled Derozen shooting a 3 with about 10 seconds left in OT (he made all 3 to tie).

Cavs then don't call a timeout (see Joe's not the only one, ha) and fail to score at the end of OT.

Bulls then actually look like a good team in double OT and looks like they're going to beat the Cavs now.

Looks like the C’s will end February with an 8-game lead for the conference.  That’s pretty crazy.

[Moranis]

I looked back on the last few seasons and came up with parameters that I think make sense regarding if a team should be in the play-in. I think the right parameter would be a record of at least 34-48 or at least 4 games from a team in one of the top 8.  If your record is at least 34-48 and you are more than 7 games from a team in the top 8, you are also out. 

so looking at the play-ins post bubble (and with full 82 games)
2022 East - Hawks and Hornets both in at 43-39
2022 West - 8th seed Clippers were 42-40 so Pelicans in at 36-46 and Spurs out at 34-48

2023 East - Raptors 41-41 and Bulls 40-42 both in
2023 West - Pelicans 42-40 and Thunder 40-42 both in

So the last two years, using fairly reasonable parameters only the Spurs in 2022 would have been out.

Going back before covid (so full seasons)
2019 - East both in, West both out as the Clippers in 8th won 48 games and neither 9th or 10th was at least .500
2018 - All 4 in though the Hornets just got in at 36-46 with the 8th seed being 43-39
2017 - All 4 in though the Pelicans just got in at 34-48 with the 8th seed being 41-41
2016 - Kings out in West, other 3 in

You get similar results going back further, where most years you get at least 3, often 4, but every so often 2 teams are really bad (or the playoff teams are all really good). 

I just think that is a better result.  It keeps teams engaged, but doesn't "punish" a good team in favor of a bad team.  Even this year as bad as the Bulls and Hawks have been, they are actually on pace to be in the play in using those conditions, but I still think it is the better move to do something.