OKC ousted in 7; Russell Westbrook to Celts; swap lottery pick for Love

[Eddie20]

Speaking as someone who has a favorite team, not favorite players:

Again, I'd rather throw Rondo in the Love deal and take my chances with Rubio.

  With all of your posts knocking Rondo for his poor shooting it's truly fitting that you'd want to take your chances with Rubio. He's deadly from anywhere on the court.

Some of us have a broader, team-oriented view of the game than your one-horse Rondo fixation, Tim.

If you can pull yourelf away from the Rondo posters in your room long enough, I'm sure you'll acknowledge that Love and Rubio are a drastic upgrade from Rondo.

Of course, some of us are interested in winning games and championships, not merely one player.

  Aside from Rondo's glaringly noticeable shooting woes just about every observation that I've seen you make about Rondo that could be measured statistically has been shown to be wrong. I'm sure you equate people paying enough attention to the game to point out what's wrong with your (and other poster's) claims with obsession, I tend to differ. That "posters in your room" comment was pretty clever though. You're the master at misrepresenting other posters and mocking them based on those misrepresentations. It would be more impressive if your snide comments didn't outnumber your insightful basketball comments by about 50-1.

  And, if the Wolves don't trade those two for a while, keep an eye on the Wolves for the next few years. We can get a good look at how likely you are to win a title with a Love-Rubio core.

Hey Tim, isn't the C's record with Rondo in the starting lineup only 26-49 since the 2012-13 season? I know you love talking about 2012, 2010, and I think you've even rehashed some of his Oak Hill glory days. However, isn't fair to say that he's either been a major disappointment, when you consider our record, or perhaps you've simply been overrating him since he was a byproduct of playing with all-star caliber teammates? If Lowry or Dragic of today were playing with the big 3 of 2008-2013 would you have thought of them as superstar players too?

Curious to hear your Rondo defense, but the adage "consider the source" needs to be kept in mind once you start with your Rondo rhetoric.

[Celtics18]

It must be the "Ad Hominen Attacks on BBallTim Hour" again. 

[Eddie20]

It must be the "Ad Hominen Attacks on BBallTim Hour" again.

Or it could be "BBallTim nobly defends Rondo's honor with passionate vigor every time a Rondo trade is mentioned". I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

[BballTim]

It must be the "Ad Hominen Attacks on BBallTim Hour" again.

  School's obviously out for the day.

[BballTim]

Speaking as someone who has a favorite team, not favorite players:

Again, I'd rather throw Rondo in the Love deal and take my chances with Rubio.

  With all of your posts knocking Rondo for his poor shooting it's truly fitting that you'd want to take your chances with Rubio. He's deadly from anywhere on the court.

Some of us have a broader, team-oriented view of the game than your one-horse Rondo fixation, Tim.

If you can pull yourelf away from the Rondo posters in your room long enough, I'm sure you'll acknowledge that Love and Rubio are a drastic upgrade from Rondo.

Of course, some of us are interested in winning games and championships, not merely one player.

  Aside from Rondo's glaringly noticeable shooting woes just about every observation that I've seen you make about Rondo that could be measured statistically has been shown to be wrong. I'm sure you equate people paying enough attention to the game to point out what's wrong with your (and other poster's) claims with obsession, I tend to differ. That "posters in your room" comment was pretty clever though. You're the master at misrepresenting other posters and mocking them based on those misrepresentations. It would be more impressive if your snide comments didn't outnumber your insightful basketball comments by about 50-1.

  And, if the Wolves don't trade those two for a while, keep an eye on the Wolves for the next few years. We can get a good look at how likely you are to win a title with a Love-Rubio core.

Hey Tim, isn't the C's record with Rondo in the starting lineup only 26-49 since the 2012-13 season? I know you love talking about 2012, 2010, and I think you've even rehashed some of his Oak Hill glory days. However, isn't fair to say that he's either been a major disappointment, when you consider our record, or perhaps you've simply been overrating him since he was a byproduct of playing with all-star caliber teammates? If Lowry or Dragic of today were playing with the big 3 of 2008-2013 would you have thought of them as superstar players too?

Curious to hear your Rondo defense, but the adage "consider the source" needs to be kept in mind once you start with your Rondo rhetoric.

  I could spend quite a bit of time listing all of the reasons besides Rondo's play for out record over that time period but since you were unable to notice any of them when they were occurring and haven't been able to pick them up in any previous discussions I'm not sure it's worth the effort.

  Why not switch things up? You could list all of the things besides Rondo that you noticed that would affect our record (assuming you noticed any at all) and if I have time I'll give you an overview of the rest of them.

[Celtics18]

Speaking as someone who has a favorite team, not favorite players:

Again, I'd rather throw Rondo in the Love deal and take my chances with Rubio.

  With all of your posts knocking Rondo for his poor shooting it's truly fitting that you'd want to take your chances with Rubio. He's deadly from anywhere on the court.

Some of us have a broader, team-oriented view of the game than your one-horse Rondo fixation, Tim.

If you can pull yourelf away from the Rondo posters in your room long enough, I'm sure you'll acknowledge that Love and Rubio are a drastic upgrade from Rondo.

Of course, some of us are interested in winning games and championships, not merely one player.

  Aside from Rondo's glaringly noticeable shooting woes just about every observation that I've seen you make about Rondo that could be measured statistically has been shown to be wrong. I'm sure you equate people paying enough attention to the game to point out what's wrong with your (and other poster's) claims with obsession, I tend to differ. That "posters in your room" comment was pretty clever though. You're the master at misrepresenting other posters and mocking them based on those misrepresentations. It would be more impressive if your snide comments didn't outnumber your insightful basketball comments by about 50-1.

  And, if the Wolves don't trade those two for a while, keep an eye on the Wolves for the next few years. We can get a good look at how likely you are to win a title with a Love-Rubio core.

Hey Tim, isn't the C's record with Rondo in the starting lineup only 26-49 since the 2012-13 season? I know you love talking about 2012, 2010, and I think you've even rehashed some of his Oak Hill glory days. However, isn't fair to say that he's either been a major disappointment, when you consider our record, or perhaps you've simply been overrating him since he was a byproduct of playing with all-star caliber teammates? If Lowry or Dragic of today were playing with the big 3 of 2008-2013 would you have thought of them as superstar players too?

Curious to hear your Rondo defense, but the adage "consider the source" needs to be kept in mind once you start with your Rondo rhetoric.

Do you base a player's relative value purely on his team's winning percentage?  What do you think of Kyrie Irving as a player?

[D.o.s.]

[Celtics18]

C'mon, Billy, you know you want to put down that popcorn and get in the game. 

[Endless Paradise]

With an injured Mike Conley and a suspended Zach Randolph for Game 7, it's pretty much safe to say this topic is moot.

[D.o.s.]

 

I think winning percentage can be a pretty interesting stat, especially if you're looking at a player who's purported to be the best player on the team. It says a lot, to me, if your best player can't lead your team to a .500 record. Especially if that's the case for more than one season.

On the other hand, I tend to apply that logic more to players who've already signed their second contracts, simply because by that point they're starting to define who they're going to be in the NBA.

So Kyrie's losing is starting to be an albatross, but it's much more concerning to me that someone like Kevin Love hasn't yet been on a winning team.

With an injured Mike Conley and a suspended Zach Randolph for Game 7, it's pretty much safe to say this topic is moot.

But now we can start the "NBA Rigged The Series so the thunder could advance" thread.

[ScoobyDoo]

Sorry Celtics18, in that scenario, I'd look to trade Humphries and a future first round pick for Asik.

My thinking is that if I'm Houston what I want most is cap space so i can get after a nother piece to put next to harden and Howard in the off season. Humphries expiring... a first round pick for them is a bonus.

Some people think thata's not enough for Asik - if I'm Houston I take it immediately. I get cap and can still try to re-sign Hump if I want / can.

[Endless Paradise]

But now we can start the "NBA Rigged The Series so the thunder could advance" thread.

Already started elsewhere.  Despite the fact that not only was Z-Bo not ejected last night, but they didn't even call a technical on him.  And also despite the fact that there's already been a precedent in these playoffs of people getting suspended for hitting people above the face (Nene, DeJuan Blair).

[Greenback]

I have to give D.O.S a Tommy point.   One of the most objective posts I have read in a while.

[Greenback]

Tommy point for Eddie20.   Hilarious post! 

[kozlodoev]

   a) "denounced hero ball" pretty much means complaining when it happens, b) our pace was about 1 possession per game below the league average, I'll leave it to you to explain how 1 more possession for the team in a game would have a profound effect on those scoring averages and c) they were good, not great scorers.

Well yeah, I guess the fact that no-one took more than 15 shots per game is pure coincidence. Had nothing to do with team strategy. Heck, even taking 13 shots per game was unusual.

  Yes, our strategy had to change because our leading scorers were worsening over time. In 2008 the bog three scored 57% of our points during the season. In 2010 that number was down to 49%. There's a reason for that. People like to think that PP and KG played like superstars through 2012 or 2013 and then suddenly fell off of a cliff. That's not the case. The dropoff in their play was pretty noticeable over time.

I can't replicate your numbers, so I've got no idea how you're calculating this. If you're using point totals, it probably reflects missed games. If you're using averages, it's not particularly indicative of anything, since you're not accounting for missed games in any way.

And if you can't see how taking 100 shots per game will likely result in higher individual scoring averages than taking 90 shots per game, I don't think I can explain it to you

  If you can't see that no team in the league takes 100 shots per game (only 1 team has even taken 90 a game since 2008) and the Celts weren't 10 shots a game below average in those years you can save that explanation. Also, you were talking pace, which is different than FGA.

Teams that play at a higher pace typically take more shots than teams that play at a slower pace. Do I really need to explain the concept of pace-adjusted vs. raw averages?! It applies for pretty much everything, including points and FGAs.

Rubio is a horrible shooter. And yet, he holds a career .330 on three pointers on a non-negligible sample of shots.

  ...which is still below average.

...but yet leaps and bounds above what Rondo was able to muster in his best season.

  Rondo's best year was 31%, 33% isn't "leaps and bounds" better than that.

Well then, I apologize -- that year when Rondo shot 15 for 48 is only marginally worse. Too bad that he's shot .240 or less in 5 of his other 7 seasons, though