What's new
By:
Filters

Knicks vs Cavs 1st Round Series (Mitchell Getting *** Whooped by Brunson Season 2)

LoPo said:
I believe they did, and many agree with me. They completely missed the playoffs the year before, and they became a home seed in the Eastern Conference and won 51 games. They rely on 9 players under the age of 26 making them one of the youngest teams in the NBA.

If you break down their production, they had the 28th bench production in the league. That means Don, Garland, Mobley, Allen and probably the worst SF options in the league doing a lot of work. If you watched this NY series, it's blatantly obvious that Garland and Don pretty much have to do everything, and nobody wins in the playoffs like that.

It's a young team that has to grow up to take that next step.
Click to expand...
Come on man. No one will agree with you that the cavs exceeded expectations. Expectations were sky high with Mobley no longer a rookie and adding a top 20 player in Mitchell. This season was a huge failure losing in the 1st rd 4-1 with home court advantage and really not being all that competitive in the series.
 
sip said:
Come on man. No one will agree with you that the cavs exceeded expectations. Expectations were sky high with Mobley no longer a rookie and adding a top 20 player in Mitchell. This season was a huge failure losing in the 1st rd 4-1 with home court advantage and really not being all that competitive in the series.
Click to expand...
Trading 4 first round picks and two swaps to win a single first round series game isnt exceeding expectations?
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Trading 4 first round picks and two swaps to win a single first round series game isnt exceeding expectations?
Click to expand...
Bro, they won 0 playoff games last year so even one game makes it totally incalculable of how many times more games they win than last year. 1 divided by 0 is the exact same as 16 divided by 0.
 
Eminence said:
That only works if the player is only shooting 1 FT. Players shoot 2 on shooting fouls more often than not. 40% FG% = 40% FT% most of the time (on 2s, 60% for 3s).

Foul drawing is a crazy valuable offensive skill (Harden level baiting sucks to watch though).
Click to expand...
Hmm, that's true. Brainfart on my side.

I *still* think it makes zero sense to not count the shots at all, though. You need to count a shot you were fouled on as a shot if you are trying to quantify effiency.
 
Eminence said:
That only works if the player is only shooting 1 FT. Players shoot 2 on shooting fouls more often than not. 40% FG% = 40% FT% most of the time (on 2s, 60% for 3s).

Foul drawing is a crazy valuable offensive skill (Harden level baiting sucks to watch though).
Click to expand...
I want to keep talking about Dejounte Murray:

The synopsis is that considering the entire context, I think Murray should be a target. He complements what the Jazz are going to have, checks off so many boxes that so few others can, and is almost certainly going to be available in the next two seasons. Without warts, Murray becomes increasingly unattainable. Lastly, foul-hunting is often a NEGATIVE attribute, especially in the playoffs or in the clutch when officials generally swallow their whistles much more.

There is huge value in drawing fouls, but it is one aspect to the game. Like almost every other attribute, it exists within a context. The context with the Jazz is that moving forward, there is an emerging weakness at the guard and wing spots positionally, and particularly with the attributes of shot-creation and setting the table for others. Ideally, you have good size in the backcourt and players that can be effective with the ball but don't need to dominate the ball to be effective, which retains or perhaps creates the possibility of "position-less basketball" and still checking off the checkboxes across the team so it's not just a blob of homogenous players without any particular strengths.

The Jazz have a base of Lauri and Kessler to work with. What they both do is score in an insanely efficient manner. WK lacks volume, but has an elite FG% while Lauri is arguably the most efficient volume scorer in the NBA. What neither of them do well is create shots or "play-make". What both of them benefit from in an outsize manner is getting their tables set. I've already mentioned that I think Murray generally makes up for his lack of drawing fouls by checking off so many other boxes elsewise, but in the Jazz's context, the lack of foul-drawing is further buoyed by the outsize benefits he would provide this team and that Lauri and WK offset that weakness further by providing an efficient scoring base. And given Murray's size and skillset, you either end up with a huge, switchable backcourt, or you get a second guard to help reinforce whatever creation your lead guard is generating.

The Jazz are in a position to take some calculated risks regarding their salary situation for the next four years because of their pristine cap sheet, their likely-influx of rookie-scale players filling out the roster, and that any substantial raises for any of those rookie-scale guys won't happen until 2026 at the earliest (and this should honestly only apply to Kessler).

Regarding the point that Murray is a salty SOB: salt is a spice. Too much of it is poison to the point of killing even land. But some of it is necessary for basically any biological function or for anything to taste good. Right now, the Jazz are a 100% sugary culture/situation and I think they could not only afford to take a pinch of salt, they might even benefit from it.

Lastly and as it pertains to the thread itself: Murray is almost exactly the archetype of player that a weird fit like Donovan needs to succeed at a high level. It would be wise to stock up on players that play at a high level and fit any situation and Murray is basically that. If the Jazz are replete with high-level players that facilitate fit as much or more than require fit around them, they can afford to take a calculated gamble on a player less complete but with superstar scoring ability at some point down the road.
 
Last edited:
NUMBERICA said:
I want to keep talking about Dejounte Murray:

The synopsis is that considering the entire context, I think Murray should be a target. He complements what the Jazz are going to have, checks off so many boxes that so few others can, and is almost certainly going to be available in the next two seasons. Without warts, Murray becomes increasingly unattainable. Lastly, foul-hunting is often a NEGATIVE attribute, especially in the playoffs or in the clutch when officials generally swallow their whistles much more.

There is huge value in drawing fouls, but it is one aspect to the game. Like almost every other attribute, it exists within a context. The context with the Jazz is that moving forward, there is an emerging weakness at the guard and wing spots positionally, and particularly with the attributes of shot-creation and setting the table for others. Ideally, you have good size in the backcourt and players that can be effective with the ball but don't need to dominate the ball to be effective, which retains or perhaps creates the possibility of "position-less basketball" and still checking off the checkboxes across the team so it's not just a blob of homogenous players without any particular strengths.

The Jazz have a base of Lauri and Kessler to work with. What they both do is score in an insanely efficient manner. WK lacks volume, but has an elite FG% while Lauri is arguably the most efficient volume scorer in the NBA. What neither of them do well is create shots or "play-make". What both of them benefit from in an outsize manner is getting their tables set. I've already mentioned that I think Murray generally makes up for his lack of drawing fouls by checking off so many other boxes elsewise, but in the Jazz's context, the lack of foul-drawing is further buoyed by the outsize benefits he would provide this team and that Lauri and WK offset that weakness further by providing an efficient scoring base. And given Murray's size and skillset, you either end up with a huge, switchable backcourt, or you get a second guard to help reinforce whatever creation your lead guard is generating.

The Jazz are in a position to take some calculated risks regarding their salary situation for the next four years because of their pristine cap sheet, their likely-influx of rookie-scale players filling out the roster, and that any substantial raises for any of those rookie-scale guys won't happen until 2026 at the earliest (and this should honestly only apply to Kessler).

Regarding the point that Murray is a salty SOB: salt is a spice. Too much of it is poison to the point of killing even land. But some of it is necessary for basically any biological function or for anything to taste good. Right now, the Jazz are a 100% sugary culture/situation and I think they could not only afford to take a pinch of salt, they might even benefit from it.

Lastly and as it pertains to the thread itself: Murray is almost exactly the archetype of player that a weird fit like Donovan needs to succeed at a high level. It would be wise to stock up on players that play at a high level and fit any situation and Murray is basically that. If the Jazz are replete with high-level players that facilitate fit as much or more than require fit around them, they can afford to take a calculated gamble on a player less complete but with superstar scoring ability at some point down the road.
Click to expand...

I’d be fine with Murray at the ‘right’ price (haven’t though on what that price woild be). He’s a good player who would fit well.
 
Eminence said:
I’d be fine with Murray at the ‘right’ price (haven’t though on what that price woild be). He’s a good player who would fit well.
Click to expand...
Well he’s a free agent after next season, so he might be “free” from an asset standpoint. However, depending on how the next yea unfolds, they could acquire him mid-season and perform a renegotiate and extend if they have enough cap space mid season. A trade for an expiring contract mid season isn’t likely to cost much, especially if in negotiations you can also just point out that you have the cap space to grab him outright in free agency.

Long story short, I don’t think it would necessarily take that much.
 
No metter WHAT We are in a very good place with all these Gobert/Mitchel picks - beside of that We gave up so many assets for nothing - like Cheeks for free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top