2013 NBA Playoffs Thread

[BwareDWare94 723]

You do realize that if Indiana didn't have a guy who averaged 9 points per game in the playoffs and regular go off for 25 points, the Kicks woulda probably beat the Pacers by double digit points... right?

 

No, because the Knicks weren't playing well but for the third quarter.

 

I'm sick of this. The Knicks are not that good. Their superstar is a actually just a volume scorer posing as a superstar because he doesn't play both ends of the floor. Their second scorer is inconsistent and we can't even trust that he won't get hammered on any night during the series. Their supposed stud PF is a shell of his former self because he can't stay healthy. Their center is so limited offensively that if he plays anyone with any kind of offensive game, he gets his ass kicked because he's going to be hard pressed to put ten points up. Their bench is a bunch of nobodies and old has beens. Their starting PG is a 35 year old rookie who isn't that good and they have Raymond Felton posing as a two guard, which he just isn't. Their coach is very limited offensively and they don't have any valuable bench players. Their current player with most upside is Iman Shumpert, but he's not nearly developed enough yet.

 

This is as far as the Knicks could have gone, and they flat out ran into a better team in this series. It's not like they're the Warriors, who should have been up 3-2 going into the game 6 that they lost but because they blew a big lead a game one, they're out of the playoffs. The Knicks didn't squander opportunities; they flamed out because they, quite frankly, are not that good.

 

I respect your basketball opinions because you're spot on pretty much 100% of the time, but you are wrong about this. The Knicks didn't belong on the same court as the Pacers, who exemplify what "team" means on both ends of the floor.

 

Indiana will challenge Miami.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

It's not that the Knicks are overrated, it's that they play an unsustainable model of basketball. Live by the 3, die by the 3. When it's not dropping and your coach is too incompetent to find new ways to procure points, you're not going to get very far. The Knicks didn't get very far.

[BwareDWare94 723]

It's not that the Knicks are overrated, it's that they play an unsustainable model of basketball. Live by the 3, die by the 3. When it's not dropping and your coach is too incompetent to find new ways to procure points, you're not going to get very far. The Knicks didn't get very far.

 

They weren't good enough to get any further.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

They weren't good enough to get any further.

 

They were if the 3s are falling. See: Game 2.

[BwareDWare94 723]

They were if the 3s are falling. See: Game 2.

 

That game was an anomaly because they were playing a superior team.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

[BwareDWare94 723]

Look, I'm just tired of the excuses for the Knicks. They aren't as good as the Pacers, pure and simple.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Kinda funny coming from the king of making excuses.

 

Edit: Also, that means that saying the Pacers will challenge the Heat is ridiculous. The difference between the Pacers and Knicks is a lot less than the difference between Pacers and the Heat. Therefore, the Pacers don't belong on the same court as the Heat, and if they happen to get any wins, its just an anomaly.

Edited May 19, 2013 by blotsfan

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Pacers won't win more than 1 game against the Heat.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I'm just backing the Pacers because some people are acting like it was an upset for them to beat the Knicks.

[Vin+ 3,121]

People have been saying for the entire season that the Pacers would put up a fight against the Heat. Time to see if they were right.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

No, because the Knicks weren't playing well but for the third quarter.

 

I'm sick of this. The Knicks are not that good. Their superstar is a actually just a volume scorer posing as a superstar because he doesn't play both ends of the floor. Their second scorer is inconsistent and we can't even trust that he won't get hammered on any night during the series. Their supposed stud PF is a shell of his former self because he can't stay healthy. Their center is so limited offensively that if he plays anyone with any kind of offensive game, he gets his ass kicked because he's going to be hard pressed to put ten points up. Their bench is a bunch of nobodies and old has beens. Their starting PG is a 35 year old rookie who isn't that good and they have Raymond Felton posing as a two guard, which he just isn't. Their coach is very limited offensively and they don't have any valuable bench players. Their current player with most upside is Iman Shumpert, but he's not nearly developed enough yet.

 

This is as far as the Knicks could have gone, and they flat out ran into a better team in this series. It's not like they're the Warriors, who should have been up 3-2 going into the game 6 that they lost but because they blew a big lead a game one, they're out of the playoffs. The Knicks didn't squander opportunities; they flamed out because they, quite frankly, are not that good.

 

I respect your basketball opinions because you're spot on pretty much 100% of the time, but you are wrong about this. The Knicks didn't belong on the same court as the Pacers, who exemplify what "team" means on both ends of the floor.

 

Indiana will challenge Miami.

 

The Knicks had a top 5 offense and a top 10 defense for the majority of the year. They were 6th in the NBA in point differentials, were among the best rebounders, made a record number of threes this season, split the season series or swept the top 4 teams to make it out of the west, how can you possibly say that they just weren't a very good team? Where does that even come from?

 

If you are arguing that their method of winning wasn't sustainable for a 7 game series against a tough opponent, then I'd happily agree. But to go as far as to say they aren't a very good team is extremely laughable, and when you consider the fact that the Pacers were worse against the better teams in the west in comparison to the Knicks by a wide margin.

 

The only aspect of the Knicks that you can say the Pacers are outright better then them in is defense and maybe rebounding.

 

The Pacers have a great defense and a bad offense, like as bad as the Pistons offense, they turned the ball over a ton, had either awful or below average ball movement. In comparison with the Knicks who had a top 10 defense, on top of having one of the most efficient offenses, even with two chuckers carrying a load of the offense.

 

The fact of the matter is that the Knicks beat themselves this series more then the Pacers beat them. The Pacers did a great job of messing up Carmelo's flow, but JR Smith had been bad since the end of the series against the Celtics and was just missing shots he normally took, and made, regardless of the defense on him. Same goes for all the individuals who were a part of arguably one of the top three point shooting team in the history of the league. They were missing shots they normally make consistently while PG was getting help on guarding Melo every time he went one direction or another. Along with a coach who seemed satisfied with not making any type of offensive changes like, playing Copeland and Prigi more until it was too late.

 

Regardless of whether or not you think those are excuses, it doesn't make it any less true. The Pacers outside of team defense, are in no way a better team then the Knicks.

[JetsFan4Life 542]

The Pacers outside of team defense, are in no way a better team then the Knicks.

 

So you are saying simply because the Knicks are a better shooting team that makes them the better team? That's ludicrous.

 

I don't think the Knicks aren't good but the Pacers are better and they proved it. The Pacers let the Knicks shoot those jump shots knowing they would have to be cold at some point.

 

Also you mention putting in Copeland? You want to talk about defense...did you even watch Game 6? How many times did Copeland fuck up defensively because I caught about 4 baskets within a 5 minute span that were completely on him. Bum.

 

Pacers put 100 points up a couple times in this series...but no they have a bad offense I guess. If the Knicks had a top ten defense how do you allow that? And how is that the Knicks beating themselves?

 

 

 

As for picks I'll say Heat in six and Spurs in seven.

Edited May 19, 2013 by JetsFan4Life

[BwareDWare94 723]

So you are saying simply because the Knicks are a better shooting team that makes them the better team? That's ludicrous.

 

I don't think the Knicks aren't good but the Pacers are better and they proved it. The Pacers let the Knicks shoot those jump shots knowing they would have to be cold at some point.

 

Also you mention putting in Copeland? You want to talk about defense...did you even watch Game 6? How many times did Copeland fuck up defensively because I caught about 4 baskets within a 5 minute span that were completely on him. Bum.

 

Pacers put 100 points up a couple times in this series...but no they have a bad offense I guess. If the Knicks had a top ten defense how do you allow that? And how is that the Knicks beating themselves?

 

The Knicks beat themselves though, dog. Didn't you read his post about meaningless statistics?

 

Might I add, DMac, that Houston throttled NYK in every matchup this year, whereas I don't think Houston beat the Pacers once, and I'm not sure that they ever came within ten points?

 

The Pacers beat the teams they're supposed to beat--inferior teams--and the Knicks proved to be one of them.

Edited May 19, 2013 by BwareDWare94

[Piggly Wiggly 960]

Pacers won't win more than 1 game against the Heat.

This. The Pacers are gonna get their shit kicked in by the Heat lol.

 

And the Knicks definitely aren't better than the Pacers. They're a team with a bunch of chuckers. And they're only going to get worse since their roster is mostly comprised of players that are over 30 lol. And aren't they cap strapped, too? Yeah, they fucked.

[BwareDWare94 723]

This. The Pacers are gonna get their shit kicked in by the Heat lol.

And the Knicks definitely aren't better than the Pacers. They're a team with a bunch of chuckers. And they're only going to get worse since their roster is mostly comprised of players that are over 30 lol. And aren't they cap strapped, too? Yeah, they fucked.

 

Hey, you're probably right, but own up if the Pacers give them a series.

[housemd 338]

Heat in 6 and Grizzlies in 7.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

So you are saying simply because the Knicks are a better shooting team that makes them the better team? That's ludicrous.

 

I don't think the Knicks aren't good but the Pacers are better and they proved it. The Pacers let the Knicks shoot those jump shots knowing they would have to be cold at some point.

 

Also you mention putting in Copeland? You want to talk about defense...did you even watch Game 6? How many times did Copeland fuck up defensively because I caught about 4 baskets within a 5 minute span that were completely on him. Bum.

 

Pacers put 100 points up a couple times in this series...but no they have a bad offense I guess. If the Knicks had a top ten defense how do you allow that? And how is that the Knicks beating themselves?

 

 

 

As for picks I'll say Heat in six and Spurs in seven.

 

No I'm saying because the Knicks have a better OFFENSE by a WIDE MARGIN and a defense that's only a few spots lower then the Pacers, that makes them the better team.

 

I'm not quiet sure why you bring up Copeland's defense, because this has nothing to do with Copeland's defense. This has to do with the fact that the Knicks weren't putting on the court the players most capable of hitting their jumpers. Everyone was asking for Copeland because of that ability, not be cause of his defense.

 

The Knicks have Shumpert and Chandler and Felton for picking up most of the defensive duty anyway.

 

The Knicks beat themselves though, dog. Didn't you read his post about meaningless statistics?

 

Might I add, DMac, that Houston throttled NYK in every matchup this year, whereas I don't think Houston beat the Pacers once, and I'm not sure that they ever came within ten points?

 

The Pacers beat the teams they're supposed to beat--inferior teams--and the Knicks proved to be one of them.

 

The first game was at the beginning of the season, you can get barely anything out of that game. Melo didn't play in the second, and they had multiple injuries. Thei best player didn't play, yea I know. Another excuse.

 

And yea, let's throw out the stats as meaningless, because after all, they don't support what you're saying.

[JetsFan4Life 542]

No I'm saying because the Knicks have a better OFFENSE by a WIDE MARGIN and a defense that's only a few spots lower then the Pacers, that makes them the better team.

 

I'm not quiet sure why you bring up Copeland's defense, because this has nothing to do with Copeland's defense. This has to do with the fact that the Knicks weren't putting on the court the players most capable of hitting their jumpers. Everyone was asking for Copeland because of that ability, not be cause of his defense.

 

The Knicks have Shumpert and Chandler and Felton for picking up most of the defensive duty anyway.

 

 

 

I still don't think that makes them the better team because stats wise the difference is large in offense than defense. The Pacers lost some of their offense in Granger and have spent the season adjusting to that. Once again...the Pacers put up 100 points twice in this series. Is that good offense or bad defense? And it's not an anomaly if it happens twice so either the Pacers offense is better than the stats say or the Knicks defense is worse than the stats say...

 

You do realize if you have Copeland out there for offense he's going to be out there on defense too right? He's such a liability on defense it's not even funny and probably not worth his offense.

[The Admiral 28]

That was pretty much perfect execution by the Spurs. Attacking the boards, hitting 3's, amazing perimeter and post defense, perfect screens on offense. Go Spurs Go!!

 

Timmy had a nightmare on offense but that was some amazing post-defense. Tony was great, Kawhi is unbelievable on his perimeter D, rivals Bruce's. Still going to be a really tough series. Memphis isn't built to be an inconsistent team.

[BwareDWare94 723]

LOL at the Knicks being a better team, DMac. Just LOL. You clearly weren't watching objectively. Are you a Knicks or Melo fan?

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I still don't think that makes them the better team because stats wise the difference is large in offense than defense. The Pacers lost some of their offense in Granger and have spent the season adjusting to that. Once again...the Pacers put up 100 points twice in this series. Is that good offense or bad defense? And it's not an anomaly if it happens twice so either the Pacers offense is better than the stats say or the Knicks defense is worse than the stats say...

 

You do realize if you have Copeland out there for offense he's going to be out there on defense too right? He's such a liability on defense it's not even funny and probably not worth his offense.

 

Teams do this all the time, and it works pretty well. The Nets do it with Reggie Evans to make up for Lopez' inability to rebound, the guy gives you nothing offensively, the Thunder with Perkins, etc. Many teams do it, and as long as the guy isn't starting, it really doesn't matter.

 

Like I said, if it wasn't for arguably the Pacer's worst offensive player having a career night, the Pacers probably would of lost, at home, by double digit. And that's with a +28 FT differential (They average a +4 FT). That game in of itself was full of anomalies as far as the Pacers is concerned.

 

LOL at the Knicks being a better team, DMac. Just LOL. You clearly weren't watching objectively. Are you a Knicks or Melo fan?

 

Yea, I am a huge fan of Melo. But I'm failing to see what exactly this has to do with anything?

 

There's a reason why just about everyone including the experts had the Knicks winning this series and it was in large part due to the fact that the Knicks played better this year. I presented actual stats, and facts to back that claim.

 

If you wanna stoop to the level of reducing it to me just having bias because I'm a fan of one player on a team, then I'm probably wasting my time with this argument. The series is over anyway, and frankly, it seems I'm just arguing to argue because you are so fixed on just the outcome.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

That was pretty much perfect execution by the Spurs. Attacking the boards, hitting 3's, amazing perimeter and post defense, perfect screens on offense. Go Spurs Go!!

 

Timmy had a nightmare on offense but that was some amazing post-defense. Tony was great, Kawhi is unbelievable on his perimeter D, rivals Bruce's. Still going to be a really tough series. Memphis isn't built to be an inconsistent team.

 

As long as the Spurs can control the pace the Grizzlies are in trouble. Memphis isn't built to live and die by the perimeter offensive players, and that's essentially what the Spurs forced.

 

I really underestimated the Spurs' perimeter guys.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Yea, I am a huge fan of Melo. But I'm failing to see what exactly this has to do with anything?

 

There's a reason why just about everyone including the experts had the Knicks winning this series and it was in large part due to the fact that the Knicks played better this year. I presented actual stats, and facts to back that claim.

 

If you wanna stoop to the level of reducing it to me just having bias because I'm a fan of one player on a team, then I'm probably wasting my time with this argument. The series is over anyway, and frankly, it seems I'm just arguing to argue because you are so fixed on just the outcome.

 

You're arguing that the Knicks are a better team when they lost the series in 6 games. They would have lost in 5 had George Hill played game 5, anyway.

 

The better team doesn't lose in less than 7 games. There is no argument for the Knicks. I posted a long rant about what is wrong with the Knicks up above and you seemingly ignored it. Raymond Felton is not a 2 guard. Pablo Prigioni isn't very good. Amar'e is hurt. JR is inconsistent. Tyson Chandler is good for a dunk here and there and that's it. He became massively overrated after Dallas won a title.

 

The Pacers were a better team at every position but Small Forward (I consider Melo a SF even when he starts at 4). Their bench was better. They're a better defensive team. They're much tougher. They're much more controlled on the court (the amount of Ts the Knicks should get is ridiculous. They're the Clippers of the East). Their stars (George and West) actually play defense. An excellent offense in the regular season can mean nothing in the post season. Ask the Suns of the early to mid millenium.

 

I'm not stooping to the level of insulting you; I just think you're wrong and your opinion comes off as biased.

[BwareDWare94 723]

As long as the Spurs can control the pace the Grizzlies are in trouble. Memphis isn't built to live and die by the perimeter offensive players, and that's essentially what the Spurs forced.

 

I really underestimated the Spurs' perimeter guys.

 

Probably because they disappeared in the Conference Finals last year.