By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
burninmylight on 22 June 2021
Edit Thread
Shaunodon said:
burninmylight said:

"And how exactly is it a result of them being a super team?"

I'll tell you how. They traded away great depth in guys like Caris Levert and Jarrett Allen to make room for Harden a year after spending all of their cap space on Irving, Durant and the ghost of DeAndre Jordan. So outside of Joe Harris and Spencer Dinwiddie, the rest of the roster is made up of minimum salary guys you can get from a scrap heap like Mike James, Tyler Johnson and TLC, guys on rookie contracts like Nic Claxton, and vets that may or may not be washed up, but definitely well past their prime like Jeff Green and Blake Griffin.

Not saying it was a bad plan. Any team in the league would have and should have done it, but as LudicrousSpeed was alluding to, when you're a top-heavy team like Brooklyn and those stars go down, it hurts you far more than a roster with a bit more depth. The only reason the series even came down to seven games, let alone OT in Game 7, was due to the pure brilliance of Durant. If he was the one that rolled his ankle or pulled his hamstring instead of Irving or Harden, it would have been over quicker.

"During the first 5 games, the Bucks played so awfully I thought just having Harden on the floor would be enough for Nets to still progress."

"Also, I don't know how bad Harden's hamstring was affecting him."

Nope. Up until Game 7, the home team in each games played well, and the road team didn't. You're probably basing your opinion on Game 2, where the Nets beat the crap out of the Bucks, but I will remind you of Game 4, where it was the other way around (don't let the final score fool you).

Ragarding Harden, did you actually watch Game 5, or at least look at a box score?

James Harden: 1-10 FG, 0-8 3PA, five points total, eight assists and four turnovers in 46 minutes. He absolutely hurt his team. He did finish with a +4 plus/minus, but chalk that up to spending so much time on the floor with Durant.

Game 6: 5-9 FG, 3-6 3PA, 16 points, seven assists and four TOs in 40 minutes. Much better than the previous game, but still not Harden-like production. -19 plus/minus, but no Nets player in the normal rotation had a positive +/-.

Game 7: 5-17 FG, 2-12 3PA, 10-10 FTA, 22 points total, 9 assists, four TOs, -4 +/-. When he wasn't getting help from refs early in the games, he was helping the Bucks stay in the game.

I would say that having Harden on the floor hurt the Nets more than helped, but with so little depth behind him, James Harden at 40 percent is probably still better than Tyler Johnson and Mike James at 100 percent.

But that's what happens when you build a superteam through free agency and lopsided trades. You rely too hard on the stars. If they get hurt or hobbled, so does your championship odds.

"During the last 2 games though, the Bucks and Giannis in particular made the adjustments they needed to play more like people expected them to."

I'd love to read your breakdown on these adjustments.

 

So all you're saying is that the Bucks had all those things going for them, and yet KD was a toe away from practically winning the series by himself. Of course, that's ignoring the major point that if the Bucks had equivalent injuries-- Middleton not playing, Holiday missing most of the series and coming back on one leg --anyone with half a clue knows the Nets win the series easily. So again, how does that have anything to do with being a super team? The Clippers have depth, yet with no Kawhi they're not going to win anything and probably won't even make the finals.

The Bucks are just lucky to be the one team who's stars are mostly healthy and/or not in Covid protocol right now. That excludes the Hawks who only have one real star. So what would be your next point after that glaring hole in your argument? That is was karma for trying to stack too much talent? At least that would have some merit for people that belive in those things, but nothing you're saying now has any sort of reason, which is unsurprising given how emotionally invested you seem to be.

I don't understand the point of your James Harden info dump. I'm aware he was overall a liability the last few games. All I'm saying is that I'm not 100% convinced it's mostly due to injury, and not just regular Playoff Harden.

"So all you're saying is that the Bucks had all those things going for them, and yet KD was a toe away from practically winning the series by himself."

Did you watch the game? Because yes, that's what it came down to. It be like that sometimes.

"Of course, that's ignoring the major point that if the Bucks had equivalent injuries-- Middleton not playing, Holiday missing most of the series and coming back on one leg --"

"The Bucks are just lucky to be the one team who's stars are mostly healthy and/or not in Covid protocol right now."

Injuries are a part of the game, and always have been. The Lakers didn't have LeBron in the playoffs this year. The Suns are missing Chris Paul. The Rockets missed Chris Paul when the took the Warriors to six or seven games a few years ago. The Heat didn't have Goran Dragic for most of the finals last year. Golden State didn't have KD or Klay Thompson the year before that. It's not the Bucks' fault that Brooklyn couldn't play their stars as intended, and it's not the Bucks' fault that Brooklyn's depth was absolutely shot because of its extremely top-heavy roster.

I can't believe that you still need explanation at this point, but here goes: when you sacrifice depth for more stars, you are not only left with giant holes in your roster when those stars are healthy, but craters when those stars are hurt. We can call it karma if trying to make me a strawman makes you feel better about it. I call it history.

"The Clippers have depth, yet with no Kawhi they're not going to win anything and probably won't even make the finals."

The Clippers didn't trade away important starters/role players that would have played big minutes in the playoffs to acquire Kawhi Leonard, did they? They signed him and Paul George off the street.

What would be your next point after that glaring hole in your argument?

"anyone with half a clue knows the Nets win the series easily."

The Sixers were supposed to win their series against the Hawks easily, but who plays on Wednesday? Everyone with half a brain - including me - picked Philly. Point is, we don't know how the Bucks-Nets would have played out if Brooklyn had a healthy roster because we didn't see it.

"I don't understand the point of your James Harden info dump. I'm aware he was overall a liability the last few games. All I'm saying is that I'm not 100% convinced it's mostly due to injury, and not just regular Playoff Harden."

I think you understand it and you're just trying to save face. You know what the point was, but I will tell you anyway: to show you what the numbers say about his performance after the hamstring injury.

You claim that nothing I say has any sort of reason, yet all you're bringing to the table is unsubstantiated opinions. A whole lot of, "I think", "I don't know", "Let me state the obvious". I'm at least giving you numbers and facts. For what basis do you have to say Harden's performance in the series might have just been "regular Playoff Harden"? Like, what is that even based on? That sounds way more of a personal feeling than anything I've said so far.