The Indy Talks To Himself (NBA) Thread.

Holy uninformed. Did you give ssmiff your login credentials or something? It's not normal for you to speak this strongly about something you so clearly don't understand.

Do G League and college basketball teams compete in the NBA In Season Tournament? No? Then why the [uck fay] are we comparing the NBA IST to the FA Cup?

The answer to your second question is "Yes, the NBA In-Season Tournament is a perfect example of an in-season tournament 'that is NOT entirely separate from the domestic league standings.'" Every game of the NBA In-Season Tournament counted towards regular season records - except for the championship game. That's part of what makes it so dumb.

 

I’m not the one who doesn’t understand it, lol. Every in-season tournament that the IST is modeled after is separate from the standings. The NBA probably would have done that too but wanted to keep the season at 82 games, which is part of why the final doesn’t count (along with the fact that it’s not really fair to the 2nd place team to have that extra loss).

You could make it a tiebreaker if you want but I don’t think you need to do that, much less that it’s one of the dumbest things in sports. It’s probably not the dumbest new rule from this past year in this one league

 

You literally asked if there was ANY in-season tournament where the games are not entirely separate from the league standings... during a discussion about an in-season tournament where EVERY game but the championship counts towards regular season standings. The answer to your ridiculous question is literally the exact in-season tournament and league we are discussing. So, yeah, you look like a guy who doesn't understand it.

If only there was a way to count the win for the IST winner without holding the loss against the losing team. Too bad that would take some sort of crazy, dark, voodoo magic to make happen.

It's monumentally dumb because the NBA clearly wants the NBA IST to matter. If the IST winner misses the god damn playoffs, and the IST championship win would have given them a shot at the 7 seed rather than the 10, it will be the definition of the IST "not mattering." Give the winner an extra (deserved) win in the standings. They literally won the game. That eliminates the need to make it affect tiebreakers, but you could do that as well if you want to add some extra oomph to it.

 

Hell, add in the fact that the Lakers’ worst stretch of the season (3-10) immediately followed the IST championship win, and if they miss the playoff, you’ve actually got a pretty good argument for why teams should AVOID winning the IST.

 

Warriors sitting Steph and Draymond seems really odd. Are they assuming they will beat the Jazz even without those two?

A loss would almost guarantee the 10 seed. Bizarre.

 

Lakers have taken and made their first 5 shots, and Bron has assisted all 5.

 

Bron with 7 assists in the first 4 minutes, and it would have been 9 if not for a missed wide open corner 3 by Reaves and a missed AD alley oop.

 

This is kind of obnoxious but I'll just say that no, it is not news to me that the IST non-final games count toward the standings.

They already got a trophy, a banner and what, 500K each? You can say you want them to also be rewarded with an extra win (and 83 games of stats?) if you want, I'm sure everyone will decide that one of these tweaks is preferable to the current model, but I don't think the current system is some horrible injustice.

It matters. People enjoyed it and the Lakers put up a banner for it. It does not at all need to ensure that the winner is a playoff team, in fact if anything it gives teams that may not be "contenders" something to play for

 

Correlation doesn't equal causation, I don't think the IST forced the Lakers to be bad. That's another Laker fan thing

 

I wonder how many times in his career LeBron has thrown an absolutely perfect pass right to a wide open guy, just for him to miss the shot or fumble the pass.

 

Lakers were 3-10 over their next 13. Pacers were 2-6 over their next 8. No one’s saying the IST caused it, but it’s odd, to say the least, that both teams were bad following the championship.

 

Then stop saying things that suggest you think the IST games don’t count towards the regular season standings.

A trophy? A banner? Are we having a serious conversation about a professional sport? Even the $500k is a pretty small reward for the higher paid guys in the league.

You act as if they put up a banner BECAUSE the IST matters. They’re putting up a banner in order to help make the IST matter.

I’m not asking for it to ensure that the winner is a playoff team. That’s a straw man you are making up. I’m saying that the championship win should count towards the regular season record in the same way every other IST game counted towards the regular season record.

 

There’s time left, but West currently looking like:

1. OKC
2. Denver
3. Timberwolves
4. Clippers
5. Mavs
6. Suns
7. Pelicans
8. Lakers
9. Kings
10. Warriors

I guess one positive to losing the 7/8 matchup would be not having to play the Nuggets in the first round.

 

In terms of rules that are actually bad, the new 65-game requirement has had several different negative consequences (including Haliburton playing through a torn hamstring) and basically zero positives

 

Quite a few differences, to be fair. Among them:

• 7 games back vs 16 games back from the 1 seed is quite a bit
  
  
• Mavs got to 50 wins, which is a somewhat arbitrary mark but is still looked at by most people as mattering
  
  
• Mavs are a legitimate threat in the Western Conference, while no one considered the Nuggets a threat that year
  
  
• Jokic wasn't even top 5 in scoring or assists that season. Luka is 1st in ppg and 3rd in apg this season
  
  
• He's doing it with Kyrie as his wing man. And I get it, Kyrie is a really good player. But that hasn't stopped him from blowing up each of the last 3 places he's been. Luka has found a way to make it work with him and still win at a high level.
  
  
• Luka is already a certified playoff assassin, whereas Jokic, at the time, was not.
  
  
• Nick Wright would probably argue that Jokic's MVP as the 6th seed is part of what opens the door for him to say Luka this season at the 5. I'm guessing he would prefer not to have 5 and 6 seeds winning it, but if we've already let it happen with Westbrook and Jokic at the 6, we can't exactly hold it against Luka at the 5? The difference was that by the time Jokic won it as the 6, most people had already accepted that Westbrook probably shouldn't have won his.

 

I mean, what award does this guy think DiVincenzo deserves that he's ineligible for?

I think the 65-game threshold is really dumb and shouldn't apply for some of the awards. Others, idk.

I go back and forth on things like the Haliburton injury. On the one hand, I don't want a guy to have to play while injured, but on the other hand, the NBA suffers greatly from stars missing games. They gotta do something to stop guys from missing games just because. I think the bigger issue with the Haliburton thing is that a huge part of whether he can be eligible for max money is based on a bunch of voters in the media, who all have their biases.

 

Pels moved to -1.5. Kind of surprising, as I think the Lakers opened at -2.5 and just beat the shit out of them 2 days ago. Wonder if it's related to AD's injury.

 

Main difference is that Jokic had the most wins of the major candidates as a "6 seed" and Luka does not, because Jokic does. Talking up his accomplishments "with Kyrie as his wing man" when Jokic had Aaron Gordon and nothing else is fun too

 

Divo is an MIP candidate, he also mentioned Hartenstein who could easily be on an All-Defense team. Stars have been missing games just because all season anyway