The NBA Thread.

Also, again, making it clear that I didn’t get to watch tonight - Caruso went 1-7 from the field, and is shooting 10% (1 for 10) from 3 for the series.

At what point does he get to be called a liability, since I’m not qualified to determine it myself?

 

the studio crew specifically complimented his play fyi. doing all the little things that matter. said only he and rondo had a good game

 

Is this that Rondo defense everyone is talking about?

 

On a serious note, I’ve seen the two big steals Rondo had and read a lot of people saying he played well. Idk how that leads to nearly single handedly erasing a 20 point lead, but it sounds like, by all accounts, he played well, especially in the 4th. Still think that having him, Caruso, and Kuzma all on the floor with 3 minutes left down 5+ is coaching malpractice.

As for Caruso, I’ve seen a ton of people making fun of his shot on top of the backboard, a number of people suggesting he struggled, and no one really saying he played well. I get that he’s an effort guy with high b-ball IQ, and I’m not saying he’s a bad player. I definitely think he’s a likable player and a feel good story. Obviously the Lakers want him on the court at the end of the game for a reason, though, as I’ve made clear, I think that lineup was awful. I still don’t think he’s good enough to be getting 25+ minutes in the Western Conference Finals for the title favorites and wouldn’t be getting these minutes on most teams.

 

Don’t you think some of that probably stems from low expectations?

Did you watch it? Do you think he had a good game?

 

If you watched the sequence, you would have seen the disruptions and play making of Rondo in the run they had, break out layups mostly. He was the straw which stirred the defensive outburst.

 

I get it. I’m not saying he played poorly or didn’t contribute defensively. It’s just hard for me to see how Rondo deserves credit for “nearly single handedly” bringing them back when AD and Bron combined for 16 points during the 19-2 run that cut it to 3.

 

From what I’ve read, it sounds to me like they need to give Dwight Howard more minutes.

 

Because most of those were layup or dunks originating from Rondo's defensive disruptions. There were others who had good plays, obviously, but Rondo was the catalyst.

 

foul trouble all night. I watched.

 

I'm having an awkward epiphany that smiff correctly pegged Indy as I guy who just looks at the ball going through the hoop.

 

To be fair, less than 50% of the points during that run came from dunks/layups.

 

How does 4 fouls = foul trouble for a bench player who gets limited minutes and doesn’t contribute significantly offensively? That doesn’t really make much sense. Foul him out if having him out there is helpful. He’s not a guy you *need* to have available down the stretch.

 

I’ve been abundantly clear that I didn’t watch. That’s why I’m asking questions. I watched games 1 and 2, as well as the end of this one. Alex Caruso is a high basketball IQ guy that they like having out there but whose usage is definitely higher than it should be.

Uni seems to be out over his ski’s a bit with this “single handedly” and “most” stuff. A guy can’t single handedly close a gap without scoring a single point. You can’t say most of the points came from dunks and layups when 10 of the 19 points came from shots that weren’t dunks or layups.

You can say Rondo played a pivotal role in the 4th quarter comeback without acting like he was the only guy who did anything. And let’s not forget that Uni mentioned this in response to my comment that Rondo/Caruso/Kuzma is a terrible end game lineup when you’re down 5. I’m still not sure what any of this has to do with that comment.

 

Read without bias Indy and maybe learn something.
https://www.nba.com/lakers/news/070620-alex-caruso-eye-test-advanced-stats-good

 

so then why argue with the answers of others to your questions? howard had 4 fouls in the 2nd. I'm not trying to express an opinion, just answering with context to the guy who didn't watch but seems to have a strong impression he can correct the strategy he didn't observe.

 

I don't know why you are fixated on this, unless in some circuitous way it means giving credit to Rondo for making the plays means to you a slight on LeBron. Then I fully understand why you are fixated on this point. I mean, I answered a few questions on this for you, but I reeeeaallllyyy don't give a [uck fay], otherwise.

 

I watched the final 3 minutes or so. I observed the end game strategy. It was bad. If, during the most pivotal 1:15 of the game, your strategy is to get open three looks for Kuzma, Caruso, and Ronda, your strategy sucks. The end result agrees. Do you have a contextual argument that disagrees?

I don’t think the four fouls does a good job of explaining why Dwight Howard didn’t get more minutes. Didn’t he start the second half? Did he get taken out because their deficit grew so substantially? I’m not saying there isn’t a reason… I just struggle to see how four fouls in the first half is the only explanation.

 

Oh, I 100% think you have a vested interest in playing up Rajon Rondo. The dude has literally been one of, if not the worst Lakers to get significant minutes for the past two seasons. He has definitely played well during the playoffs, but you’ve done your best to hold him up as an example of what makes the Lakers’ supporting cast better than that of other teams, which is just absurd. So you’ll have to forgive me if I take issue with your exaggerated claims about Rondo after Seeing multiple tweets throughout the game of people asking if playoff Rondo is dead.

 

I’m on the road today, so I’ll make sure to read it later. Still, at just a brief glance, the article is from early July (pre playoffs) and the first paragraph states that you have to use both stats and the eye test.

So yeah, I will definitely read it, but if this is going to be your support for your argument that Alex Caruso deserves 29 minutes in a pivotal Western Conference finals game, I’m not sure how a pre-playoff article saying that the stats are also important is going to prove that stance.