2018-19 NBA Season Thread

[kopp0e 1135]

1 hour ago, Goo Punch said:

from the department of redundancy department. 

Ahh, you're right about being right...

[Vic Mackey 47135]

...

[Vic Mackey 47135]

...

[ztejas 43528]

1 hour ago, Vic Mackey said:

...

Christ this is horrendous.

[Francisco 2.0 32416]

9 hours ago, ztejas said:

Christ this is horrendous.

Presenting Marcus Smart.

 

 

(There's a backstory)

[Vic Mackey 47135]

...

[Patrick Bateman 3920]

Well yea..... Shaq is 46 years old.  And I think the 2017 Warriors were the best but have yet to see them with Cousins.

[Dutchrudder 11150]

imgur

[Aqua Buddha 14600]

1 hour ago, Vic Mackey said:

...

Shaq and Kobe would each score 45 points and Shaq would also grab 20+ boards as he threw Draymond around like a rag doll.

[Drew 2517]

Which rules are they playing by?  2001 or 2017?  Different rules.  The Warriors wouldn't survive a 7 game series in 2001.  The Lakers would beat them up.

[Aqua Buddha 14600]

Shaq is 6 inches taller and 100 lbs bigger than Draymond.  He'd get abused.

[Goo Punch 4275]

25 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Shaq and Kobe would each score 45 points and Shaq would also grab 20+ boards as he threw Draymond around like a rag doll.

 right, because the Warriors are notoriously poor defensively. 

[Aqua Buddha 14600]

Whoever is being guarded by Curry (Ron Harper or Kobe) would back Curry down in the post.  Kobe would abuse him and get him in quick fouls trouble.

Warriors had trouble with the Rockets last year and should have lost in all honesty.  I don't ever want to hear any greatest of all time nonsense.

[Goo Punch 4275]

27 minutes ago, Drew said:

Which rules are they playing by?  2001 or 2017?  Different rules.  The Warriors wouldn't survive a 7 game series in 2001.  The Lakers would beat them up.

doesn't matter which era, the Warriors are equipped to beat any team under any rules. the image says current Warriors vs 02 Lakers. Draymond, Boogie, and KD aren't getting bullied by anybody, and good luck to LA when they're forced to try and outscore a team. Kobe will take 35 shots every night and he and Shaq would no longer be on speaking terms after their 4-2 series defeat, maybe 4-1 if Shaq decides to check out once the writing is on the wall. 

[Goo Punch 4275]

Just now, Aqua Buddha said:

Whoever is being guarded by Curry (Ron Harper or Kobe) would back Curry down in the post.  Kobe would abuse him and get him in quick fouls trouble.

Warriors had trouble with the Rockets last year and should have lost in all honesty.  I don't ever want to hear any greatest of all time nonsense.

The 2018 Houston Rockets and the 2002 LA Lakers are not even remotely similar teams. Using a Warriors series *victor* over that team as evidence that they couldn't beat the 2002 Lakers is...frankly what I expect from you. And since we're being frank, the fact that you think that the 20002 Lakers are so superior is probably the best case anyone could make for the current Warriors. 

[Aqua Buddha 14600]

1 minute ago, Goo Punch said:

The 2018 Houston Rockets and the 2002 LA Lakers are not even remotely similar teams. Using a Warriors series *victor* over that team as evidence that they couldn't beat the 2002 Lakers is...frankly what I expect from you. And since we're being frank, the fact that you think that the 20002 Lakers are so superior is probably the best case anyone could make for the current Warriors. 

Well, it's the 2001 Lakers so there's that.

Who guards Shaq?

[Aqua Buddha 14600]

How is Boogie guarding Shaq since he's hurt, hasn't played in almost a year, and is still months from coming back?

[Drew 2517]

10 minutes ago, Goo Punch said:

doesn't matter which era, the Warriors are equipped to beat any team under any rules. the image says current Warriors vs 02 Lakers. Draymond, Boogie, and KD aren't getting bullied by anybody, and good luck to LA when they're forced to try and outscore a team. Kobe will take 35 shots every night and he and Shaq would no longer be on speaking terms after their 4-2 series defeat, maybe 4-1 if Shaq decides to check out once the writing is on the wall. 

You don't think skinny ass KD isn't get bodied by Horry and others? 

 

If it's 2017 rules the Warriors win going away.  They're not beating Shaq and Kobe in their primes by 2002 rules.

[ztejas 43528]

This match-up would come down to KD and Shaq and each team's ability to stop them. I think Kobe could harass Curry effectively enough to remove him as an x-factor, but Durant would roast anyone on the 2001 Lakers from any spot on the floor.

Same with Shaq. He would fucking destroy them down low. It's a really strange match-up but as @Drew pointed out I think the rules played by would have a large impact. 

@Goo Punch let's assume they don't have a healthy Cousins otherwise it isn't a debate at all. Let's say 01 Lakers vs last years Warriors squad, or the 2017 Warriors which is probably (hesitant to even use that qualifier) the best team in NBA History. 

[Aqua Buddha 14600]

Wouldn't the new rules also benefit Kobe?       Same with Shaq.  He scored 30 ppg when interior play was glorified pro wrestling.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Aqua Buddha

[ztejas 43528]

2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Wouldn't the new rules also benefit Kobe?

Probably, but Klay and KD could check Kobe a little better than anyone would be able to check KD. Kobe and Curry would still get theirs but they would have to work harder. 

[52-80 19230]

But can these 2017 warriors take on the Alabama Tide?

[ztejas 43528]

4 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

But can these 2017 warriors take on the Alabama Tide?

What's their game? Straight pool? 8 ball? 9 ball? Snooker? 

[Goo Punch 4275]

the idea that there's *any* team in history that the 2017 Warriors couldn't beat is preposterous, regardless of what the rules are. First off, the NBA in 2017 >>> the NBA in 2002. Second, the 2002 Lakers won a whopping 56 games against that watered down era of NBA teams, and were literally two superstars and a bunch of 35 year old journeymen. The idea that the 2017 Warriors with two MVPs, three of the best shooters of all time, one of the best defensive players of all time, all in their prime, *are going to get smashed* by any team is so patently stupid on its face that I feel stupid just responding to it. 

I dunno how many times I have to say this, but it's basketball- the team with the best players wins. Period. And the 2017 Warriors >>>> the 2002 Lakers. Seriously, go look up that Lakers team. It's a ball dominating volume shooter and a ball dominating big man who don't get along all that often and a bunch of 40 year olds. They are not beating, or what's more destroying, the 2017 Warriors. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Goo Punch

[Goo Punch 4275]

29 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

How is Boogie guarding Shaq since he's hurt, hasn't played in almost a year, and is still months from coming back?

Kobe missed nearly 20% of the 2001 season, does he still get to play or are we acting like every player who missed part of the season doesn't count?

[Goo Punch 4275]

33 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Wouldn't the new rules also benefit Kobe?       Same with Shaq.  He scored 30 ppg when interior play was glorified pro wrestling.

there isn't a team in history that would benefit more from the new rules than the current Warriors. And good luck to all of those 35 year old Lakers players and their legs after chasing Steph around the court, worrying about keeping a hand in the face of Klay and KD, and running around chasing Draymond's passes for 5, 6, or 7 games. 

 

seriously, of all the historical teams to claim would not only beat, but destroy the current/2017 Warriors, the 2002 Lakers are near the bottom of the list. Some of Jordan's Bulls teams, or the Lakers and Celtics of the 80's when you've got 5 HOFers on the same team, sure. But a team from the early 2000's (the weakest decade of NBA basketball in my lifetime) that won 56 games and was led by two guys who often hated each other? With a bunch of aging vets as their only support? This is like a joke or something. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Goo Punch

[Drew 2517]

24 minutes ago, Goo Punch said:

the idea that there's *any* team in history that the 2017 Warriors couldn't beat is preposterous, regardless of what the rules are. First off, the NBA in 2017 >>> the NBA in 2002. Second, the 2002 Lakers won a whopping 56 games against that watered down era of NBA teams, and were literally two superstars and a bunch of 35 year old journeymen. The idea that the 2017 Warriors with two MVPs, three of the best shooters of all time, one of the best defensive players of all time, all in their prime, *are going to get smashed* by any team is so patently stupid on its face that I feel stupid just responding to it. 

I dunno how many times I have to say this, but it's basketball- the team with the best players wins. Period. And the 2017 Warriors >>>> the 2002 Lakers. Seriously, go look up that Lakers team. It's a ball dominating volume shooter and a ball dominating big man who don't get along all that often and a bunch of 40 year olds. They are not beating, or what's more destroying, the 2017 Warriors. 

Watered down? WTF man?  Maybe the East was, but the West had the Lakers, the Spurs, Kings, Trailblazer, Dallas, and KG toiling around.  That's a god damn joke.

 

Let me guess, you're 24?

Edited December 14, 2018 by Drew

[52-80 19230]

14 minutes ago, Drew said:

Watered down? WTF man?  Maybe the East was, but the West had the Lakers, the Spurs, Kings, Trailblazer, Dallas, and KG toiling around.  That's a god damn joke.

 

Let me guess, you're 24?

Would it be worse if he wasn't?

[Drew 2517]

Maybe.

[ztejas 43528]

12 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Would it be worse if he wasn't?

Well, I'm 23 and he's being an absolute dumbass. Starting with the fact that he keeps referring to the 2001, 56-win, 15-1 in the playoffs Lakers as the 2002 Lakers, who probably should have lost in the WCF to the Kings in 6 games. 

If we're going to talk about only winning 56 games, let's talk about Derek Fisher missing the first 62 due to a stress fracture and Kobe missing 14 and Shaq tending to not give 100% in the regular season regardless of year. 

Also, 2001 Shaq would be the best player on the court. 2001 Kobe would be the 4th best player on the court. After that, sure, the Warriors get the edge with Klay and Draymond being better than the Lakers' 3rd and 4th options.

Overall I might give it to the Warriors, but they would struggle enough dealing with Shaq that it would go at least 6 or 7 games. 

[Vic Mackey 47135]

...

[Underdog 28767]

The early 70s Knicks teams would whip both teams asses. 

[Goo Punch 4275]

2 hours ago, Drew said:

Watered down? WTF man?  Maybe the East was, but the West had the Lakers, the Spurs, Kings, Trailblazer, Dallas, and KG toiling around.  That's a god damn joke.

 

Let me guess, you're 24?

take the best teams and players from the 80's, 90's, 00's, and 2010-present and the 00's comes up last in both categories. You've got the golden era of the sport (80's and 90's), and the current era which features by far the best athletes and by far the most skilled players the game has ever seen. Then you have the aughts, the decade of Kobe, Iverson, Duncan, and Dirk, along with the early era Lakers and the Spurs dynasty. Great players, great teams, no doubt- but not on par with the best from any other decade of my lifetime. From the Dream Team, the Showtime Lakers, the Celtics, and the Bulls, to today's age of the modern Warriors and players like LeBron, KD, AD, Kawhi, Freak, etc they're all superior to what we got during the aughts. That's a fact. 

Don't believe me/don't remember? Go look up some of the draft classes and All Star teams from the aughts. Shocking. This is the era that saw Team USA get the bronze medal in the Olympics. There's no denying that it was a down period for the sport compared to what came before and what's come after. 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Goo Punch

[ztejas 43528]

5 minutes ago, Goo Punch said:

take the best teams and players from the 80's, 90's, 00's, and 2010-present and the 00's comes up last in both categories. You've got the golden era of the sport (80's and 90's), and the current era which features by far the best athletes and by far the most skilled players the game has ever seen. Then you have the aughts, the decade of Kobe, Iverson, Duncan, and Dirk, along with the early era Lakers and the Spurs dynasty. Great players, great teams, no doubt- but not on par but the best from any other decade of my lifetime. From the Dream Team, the Showtime Lakers, the Celtics, and the Bulls, to today's age of the modern Warriors and players like LeBron, KD, AD, Kawhi, Freak, etc they're all superior to what we got during the aughts. That's a fact. 

We're talking about 2 teams. This isn't a decade vs. decade argument. Prime Shaq would destroy in any era of the NBA - and even more so now as teams equipped themselves to deal with his size throughout the late 90s and early 2000s. Who guards Shaq on this Warriors team? And no we aren't putting a 100% Boogie out there on the floor (who Shaq would destroy anyway).

[Goo Punch 4275]

8 minutes ago, ztejas said:

We're talking about 2 teams. This isn't a decade vs. decade argument. Prime Shaq would destroy in any era of the NBA - and even more so now as teams equipped themselves to deal with his size throughout the late 90s and early 2000s. Who guards Shaq on this Warriors team? And no we aren't putting a 100% Boogie out there on the floor (who Shaq would destroy anyway).

When did Shaq become someone who goes 82-0, 16-0 every year? Was I dreaming, or did Shaq not win every single game he ever played? That's literally the only argument you guys have made: "Shaq is too dominant to be beaten." Since when? Every title he won came with either Phil + Kobe or Pat Riley + D Wade; Shaq wasn't out here dominating the league as some unstoppable force all on his own. He needed HOF help just like any other dominant player ever. Yes, Shaq was dominant...do you have anything more to say? Any of you? Because that's enough for anyone to believe that his Lakers teams would wipe the floor with the 17 Warriors who happen to have a few dominant players of their own. 

Also, yes, we are talking about two specific teams, and when several posters persistently maintain that a very old 56 win team from a watered down era of the league would destroy what is arguably/probably/absolutely the best team ever assembled, it's pretty relevant to mention that the early 2000's Lakers, mighty Shaq and all, weren't exactly facing murderer's row nor were they breaking any sort of regular season wins records. They were a very good and worthy championship team, but you make a total joke out of this argument when you reinvent this squad m and it's starting center into some undeniable force of nature that it never was. 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Goo Punch

[Goo Punch 4275]

I wish this board were active enough to actually do this, because i personally would love to participate in an exercise like this. We all rank the best 10-15 players and the best 5 teams from each decade, then take those players and teams and rank them all together. And not because i want to "win" some internet argument, I just like doing stuff like that. And, I'm just saying that if we did do that that the teams and players from the aughts would fare worse than their counterparts from the other decades of my lifetime. 

[hobbes2702 13056]

31 minutes ago, ztejas said:

We're talking about 2 teams. This isn't a decade vs. decade argument. Prime Shaq would destroy in any era of the NBA - and even more so now as teams equipped themselves to deal with his size throughout the late 90s and early 2000s. Who guards Shaq on this Warriors team? And no we aren't putting a 100% Boogie out there on the floor (who Shaq would destroy anyway).

I get that argument but the sane argument works for KD. Who guards him?

[hobbes2702 13056]

21 minutes ago, Goo Punch said:

I wish this board were active enough to actually do this, because i personally would love to participate in an exercise like this. We all rank the best 10-15 players and the best 5 teams from each decade, then take those players and teams and rank them all together. And not because i want to "win" some internet argument, I just like doing stuff like that. And, I'm just saying that if we did do that that the teams and players from the aughts would fare worse than their counterparts from the other decades of my lifetime. 

I’m in for this.

Current top 10

Freak, Bron, KD, Harden, Brow, Dame, Steph, Embiid, Claw, Russ

[Michael Knight 12993]

24 minutes ago, Goo Punch said:

I wish this board were active enough to actually do this, because i personally would love to participate in an exercise like this. We all rank the best 10-15 players and the best 5 teams from each decade, then take those players and teams and rank them all together. And not because i want to "win" some internet argument, I just like doing stuff like that. And, I'm just saying that if we did do that that the teams and players from the aughts would fare worse than their counterparts from the other decades of my lifetime. 

It would be alot more active if certain posters were alot less active

[Goo Punch 4275]

28 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

It would be alot more active if certain posters were alot less active

dude, aqua buddha is right there. 

[Goo Punch 4275]

current top 10:

Bron

KD

Kawhi

AD

Steph

Freak

Embiid

Jokic

Harden

Russ

 

80's:

Bird

Magic

Kareem

McHale

Moses

Dr.J

Isaiah

Dominique

Worthy

Gervin

 

(note- i could have used guys like Chuck, MJ and Hakeem, but i'm trying to keep it to one decade per player)

90's:

MJ

The Admiral

Scottie

Malone

Stockton

Hakeem

Chuck

Clyde

Reggie

and I'm gonna throw Drazen in as my 10th guy because he was that cold

 

00's:

Iverson

Dirk

Duncan

Kobe

Shaq

KG

D Wade 

Nash

Kidd

T Mac 

 

As far as players go I know which decade ranks last for me. And as far as teams go, if I were to start ranking the 5 best teams from each decade then the 2001 Lakers would be behind many of the championship teams from other decades, and may even be behind some teams that didn't even win a title. Does everyone here feel that the 2001 Lakers were definitely better than the 1983 Sixers? I don't. 

 

 

[Goo Punch 4275]

Embiid with 28 and 14 at half time. Ho hum.

[Underdog 28767]

Knicks were down 20+ to the Hornets earlier in the game but have comeback or the win in OT, Mudiay & Kornet were big in the 4th and OT. 

[kopp0e 1135]

14 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Presenting Marcus Smart.

 

 

(There's a backstory)

Who was he boxing against..?

[kopp0e 1135]

She ain't havin' it..!

 

[Aqua Buddha 14600]

Golden State probably should have lost to Houston last year and if anyone suggested the Rockets from last year would have beaten the 2001 Lakers, they'd be laughed out of the fucking room.

[Aqua Buddha 14600]

1 hour ago, Goo Punch said:

dude, aqua buddha is right there. 

You don't even know what team you're talking about.  Is it 2001 or 2002?  Might want to get that fucking straightened out.

Something tells me you're 22 years old.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Aqua Buddha

[hobbes2702 13056]

1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Golden State probably should have lost to Houston last year and if anyone suggested the Rockets from last year would have beaten the 2001 Lakers, they'd be laughed out of the fucking room.

Except they didn’t though. This isn’t horseshoes.

[Francisco 2.0 32416]

Didn't see this coming.

 

[Francisco 2.0 32416]