Shaunodon said:
burninmylight said:
"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? |
I'm won't even bother addressing most of this, because I can already see I'm wasting my time. I just have to point out the glaring irony of accusing someone for using a strawman, to immediately use a strawman yourself in the next point-- how exactly does signing Kawhi and PG13 (incorrect btw, that was a trade) as free agents, not losing their depth, have anything to do with my point? The point is that having depth doesn't matter if you lose one of your most important stars, and especially if you lose multiple stars. Even if the Clippers lost PG13 instead of Kawhi, they'd have a better shot at making the finals, but would still be very unlikely to win it. If the Bucks had equivalent injuries to the Nets, it's not simply 'well we'll never know what could've been'; it's already proven that Giannis is a mediocre jump shooter who struggles late in big playoff games and has free throw demons. If he couldn't rely on those other star playmakers during the last 2 games to close out and had to be the primary option every possession, the Bucks lose. The fact you can go from saying "Harden was poor, but still better then the next option", admit that Durant was literally a toe away from sending the Bucks into a deep offseason restrucure, and then somehow believe "well we'll never know what could've happened" (if the Bucks were missing two stars) in that same game, just shows how warped your logic is. |
You won't bother addressing most of it because you have yet to actually state anything meaningful, so you'd prefer to cherrypick the parts that require the least amount of fack-checking or actual effort to look things up on your part.
I forgot that LAC traded for Paul George, I will give you that (and traded away Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Danillo Gallinari, and five first rounders - that absolutely hurt their immediate and future depth). Point still stands that they signed Kawhi off the street, so they gave up nothing to acquire him. I put that in bold since you're still asking what that has to do with your point.
Yes, losing a star/one of your best players makes you less likely to win games without him. This is not news to anybody. What appears to be news to somebody is that when you give up valuable talent both immediately and for the future to acquire said star, and said star becomes unavailable, that leaves a gigantic hole in your roster. You and Chris Hu have this reductionist logic that all that matters to a team are that they have two "superstars" on the roster like it's NBA Jam in real life, and the contributions from about five-to-seven other players during the playoffs don't matter.
Also, tell me about this amazing Clippers depth:
Outside of Terrance Mann's game of his life, what Clippers rotation player is rising to the occasion? Reggie Jackson? I'm honestly asking, because I'm not too big and proud to admit when I don't watch a team or series. If you're going to make claims, please be prepared to back them up. And making claims equivalent to "Because I said so" won't cut it.
"If the Bucks had equivalent injuries to the Nets, it's not simply 'well we'll never know what could've been'; it's already proven that Giannis is a mediocre jump shooter who struggles late in big playoff games and has free throw demons."
You're proving that you're just another guy who gets all of his BBIQ from pre-game commentators and the jocks on TNT instead of actually watching games. Yes, Giannis is a mediocre jump shooter and has FT demons; guess what? Here is Giannis' FG shooting line across the seven games in this series:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/antetgi01/gamelog-playoffs/
Game 1: 16-24, .667% (34 points total) - 34 points on 24 shots; anyone will take that
Game 2: 8-15, .553% (18 points total) - 18 points on 15 shots; mediocre by Giannis standards
Game 3: 14-31, .452% (33 points total) - 33 points on 31 shots; mediocre by Giannis standards
Game 4: 14-26, .558% (34 points total) - 34 points on 26 shots; anyone will take that
Game 5: 14-22, .636% (34 points total) - 34 points on 22 shots; you pray for that
Game 6: 12-20, .600% (30 points total) - 30 points on 20 shots - you pray for that
Game 7: 15-24, .625% (40 points toal) - 40 points on 24 shots - just insane
Giannis could definitely use a more consistent jump shot, but that doesn't seem to be stopping him from being a humongous offensive force, does it? Shaq never developed a jumper, yet no one ever doubted his acumen.
And about his FTs, here is his line across seven games by percentage: 0%, 29%, 44%, .50%, .57%, .60%, .57%. Outside of Game 7, he shot better over the course of each game. I wouldn't quite say that he's exercised those demons, but he at least slowly rose to the occasion.
Also, way to be reductionist and act like all that matters to the Bucks playoff success his Giannis' jumper and FTs. It's not like other things matter, like his contributions to his team's rebounds, his timely rim protection, his key moments where they were able to somewhat contain KD during stretches mattered, huh? Nope, just the easy narrative that lazy analysts and armchair fans who don't really care to watch games lean on when they need to explain the Bucks.
If you can turn me into a strawman, I can turn you into one too. That's how that works.
But hey, it's a good thing that Giannis had a good TEAM around him to fill in the gaps when he struggles, amirite?! Everybody can't be Kevin Durant!
"Durant was literally a toe away from sending the Bucks into a deep offseason restrucure"
And this statement is the smoking gun that shows how warped your understanding of how the NBA works, and how much you don't really follow it. The Bucks are completely capped out and can't go into a "deeep offseason restrucure (sic)" because they are hard capped into their current roster; no room to sign free agents beyond minimum salaries, outside of the mid-level exception. They also don't hold many of their own first round draft picks for the forseeable future. Not coincidentally, the Nets are in the exact same boat.
But since you'd prefer to keep up the facade, you're welcome to share some suggestions on ways the Bucks can restructure its roster with key trades and/or FA signings, or what coaching change you feel will unlock the full potential of the current roster. You've been offering such deep, thoughtful analysis thus far.
