yea, lets make the warriors even better with a silly rule change

would harden also get 4 free throws for flopping with a lot of time on the shot clock?

Pretty sure LeBron translates to King in some African languages

actually, awarding 2 free throws for a fouled 3 point attempt would be better

In

They just need to no-call(or not call it as shooting) the "pump fake, lean into falling player, throw ball in general direction of hoop" play. It's super dangerous, I'm surprised nobody has hurt themselves doing it.

Warriors in 4 or 5. don't see the games being close either.

Warriors in 6 assuming NBA doesn't pull any shenanigans and force game 7 which they probably will.

I always thought they should have an NBA Jam type circle that is 4 points and super deep.

3 point wasn't even implemented until 79-80 and it was pretty much looked at as gimmicky. People get stuck in their ways and the game was just played differently back then. No coach in 1980 learned the game with the 3 point line so they didn't think much of it. It's not like guys couldn't shoot they were just really discouraged from shooting 3s. The coaches didn't get it. KC Jones ran off Dale Ellis because he literally didn't want him shooting 3s and this was in '91. Dude shot damn near 50% from three in '89 on 4 threes a game while averaging 27 ppg and instead of being encouraged to shoot more threes he got traded for basically shooting too many threes, haha.

Yeah this seems really LOL now but that's just how it was. Dudes like Ellis have to be sick now a day watching guys have the green light to fire up 10+ threes a game. It would've been fun seeing him in this era. He filled it up as it was back in the day but it would've really been something if his long distance shooting talents were fully embraced.

This is what kind of tilts me about some of the SE commentary about the 80s and 90s. "LOL long twos" "Could those guys even shoot bro?" it was just different and players were legit not allowed to shoot threes. I know it sounds really dumb now but it just wasn't part of the game. I don't think it's something guys in the past should be punished for when evaluating their games. If Klay Thompson was born with the same exact physical gifts 50 years ago instead of when he was he wouldn't be the Klay Thompson you know today because the game just wasn't played the same way. Doesn't make guys better or worse it was just different.

what I don't get is how it took so long for people to understand the math? Hell, there is still evidence that teams don't fully embrace the math.

Its pretty simple to multiply a shooting percentage by 2 or 3 and come out with an expected amount of points. Most of us on this forum probably understood this in high school yet a league with so much money involved couldn't understand it?

Most of us understood it playing NBA Jam when we were 6

I used to just shoot a 3 with Reggie Miller every single possession and crush

Just checked the schedule. Game 2 isn't until Sunday, FML. LOL NBA

this is a good point. The whole strategy was pick a good 3 point shooter and a guy that can rebound and then shoot 3s all game. So that was in the early or mid-90s yet the league didn't really catch on for another 20+ years.

Teams still shoot too few 3s and too many other jumpers. It really is amazing how stupid they are.

I get it man but pro sports haven't really been the breeding ground for progressive thinking in strategy. It's always easier to just keep doing what you were always doing. I think part of it was that coaches back then were looked at with more reverence and idolized so it's almost like coaches didn't want to go against what the coaches that taught them. Instead of just looking at it like "rules are changing, game is changing, lets capitalize on it"

Sunday is better than Saturday tv wise and it's just a 1 day difference so not really a big deal. The real LOL is that they didn't just start the finals last Sunday.

He put the pressure back on though when he promised to deliver a title to Cleveland. And then he did it. Pretty redemptive.

That doesn't mean much. He would do the same thing on the Wizards if they somehow luckboxed a couple of #1 picks (and then write a letter how he would love to do it in Cleveland too if only ownership was different)

There has always seemed to be some really weird bias in sports culture to adhere to conservative strategies. People get roasted for doing something different that fails while the reaction isn't as strong when the opposite happens.

Would be interesting to gain further insight into why that is. Probably has much to do with results not being tied to money imo. Business, poker, finance all have seen much more evolution in strategy and much more aggression than something like basketball over history.

I think shear volume of people may be an issue too. Not many people think about basketball for a living. Of course, you could say the same of poker.

I'm not sure there isn't some value in having a higher FG% even if expected points per possession is slightly lower. Aren't offenses more efficient off of a defensive rebound than a FGM? That would mean a higher-percentage 2-point attempts help out on subsequent possessions. Maybe this is offset by having more opportunities for offensive rebounds, though quality may also be lower the further away you shoot. But I'd love to see the numbers that consider all these factors, not just 3 > 2.

It's pretty easily explainable. Coaches and GMs need to keep their jobs so they do things "by the book", that way they don't shoulder as much blame for failures. Also, people refuse to look at the upside, only the downside. Happens constantly in football with going for it on 4th and inches or going for a 2PC with a high powered offense. Clearly +EV but people always lament the downside without realizing the upside. If the book was to always go for it on 4th down you would have idiot coaches not punting on 4th and 15 from their own 25 because you CANT GIVE AWAY THE BALL WHAT IF THE KICK GETS BLOCKED TAKE THE BALL OUT OF YOUR QBS HANDS YOURE FIRED.

Um, kinda confused why that takes all the pressure off?

And regardless, the Cavs have been dogs to title ever since he returned except for literally 1 minute.

And why is Bron held to such absurd standards anyway? He made a contender of the Cavs for years with 0 legitimate help. And you wanted him to choose that situation AGAIN in his 30s in order to gain "redemption?" Give me a ****ing break. I'm sure MJ would've returned to the Bulls if they were hot garbage instead of proven contender. I'm sure Magic would've stayed in LA for 10+ years if he had 0 help.

also no one seems to remember now that he promised something like 6 titles in Miami

his 2nd decision was exactly the same as first

spends some time with team 1, sees the writing on the wall, bolts to build a superteam in location 2 (which I have no problem with, who wants to play or even live in Cleveland? if not for the summer-long slowroll when all 3 of them knew from the start where they are going to end up)

spends some time with team 2, sees the writing on the wall much quicker (now he's an expert at it), bolts to build a superteam in location 3

he just ran really amazing that location 3 happened to be the same as location 1

Always wondered why a center couldn't just lift up a PG and have the ball tossed to him? free easy basket. Basketball coaches have so many weird plays they could come up with but they never do. Baseball would be easiest sport to try new things cause you have more games to test it out. Belicheck only has 16 games a season and routinely tries unorthodox plays.

the pressure is exactly the same. he stabs his current team in the back to go to another team yet again. that he does it for the title is implied already (he snap promised a million titles in Miami already, what's one more)

LOL. It is so much worse in football, true. But that is just another illustration of the What. It's not the Why. Why are they blind to the upside? Why can't they properly estimate a risk-reward ratio for common decisions/situations? Why do they jack off to Ray Guy?