Chin all seriousness, I'll take the Cavs next year
Comments
-
I don't know ... I might be willing to bet the field here ...
I really see similarities between the 87 and 88 seasons for Bird and where LBJ is right now ... both definitely great at their respective stages of their career but you could start seeing some cracks -
First ever player to average triple double in finals history. This is the best he's ever been.Tequilla said:I don't know ... I might be willing to bet the field here ...
I really see similarities between the 87 and 88 seasons for Bird and where LBJ is right now ... both definitely great at their respective stages of their career but you could start seeing some cracks -
Waiters vs Lebron
-
Highly disagree ... stats aren't everythingDoogles said:
First ever player to average triple double in finals history. This is the best he's ever been.Tequilla said:I don't know ... I might be willing to bet the field here ...
I really see similarities between the 87 and 88 seasons for Bird and where LBJ is right now ... both definitely great at their respective stages of their career but you could start seeing some cracks -
Tequilla had a bit of a good point for once.Tequilla said:
Highly disagree ... stats aren't everythingDoogles said:
First ever player to average triple double in finals history. This is the best he's ever been.Tequilla said:I don't know ... I might be willing to bet the field here ...
I really see similarities between the 87 and 88 seasons for Bird and where LBJ is right now ... both definitely great at their respective stages of their career but you could start seeing some cracks
In the high tempo era of the NBA, it's much easier to get a triple double because there are so many more possessions.
Having said that, LeBron's chinevitable decline is probably 2-3 years away.
-
Agree the magic of "triple double" isn't what it once was.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Tequilla had a bit of a good point for once.Tequilla said:
Highly disagree ... stats aren't everythingDoogles said:
First ever player to average triple double in finals history. This is the best he's ever been.Tequilla said:I don't know ... I might be willing to bet the field here ...
I really see similarities between the 87 and 88 seasons for Bird and where LBJ is right now ... both definitely great at their respective stages of their career but you could start seeing some cracks
In the high tempo era of the NBA, it's much easier to get a triple double because there are so many more possessions.
Having said that, LeBron's chinevitable decline is probably 2-3 years away.
Disagree that somehow LeBron wasn't at his best this series. He played great, minus the end of Game 3.
Golden State's just better. -
With all due respect this is fucking stupid. It's always been easier to get a triple double in a high tempo game. Just because it took you this long to figure that out doesn't take away from Lebron. You gonna comb through the record books to see which triple doubles were played at a high pace and don't count?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Tequilla had a bit of a good point for once.Tequilla said:
Highly disagree ... stats aren't everythingDoogles said:
First ever player to average triple double in finals history. This is the best he's ever been.Tequilla said:I don't know ... I might be willing to bet the field here ...
I really see similarities between the 87 and 88 seasons for Bird and where LBJ is right now ... both definitely great at their respective stages of their career but you could start seeing some cracks
In the high tempo era of the NBA, it's much easier to get a triple double because there are so many more possessions.
Having said that, LeBron's chinevitable decline is probably 2-3 years away.
Michael Jordan had a run of 7 straight triple doubles and 10 in 11 games. I'll bet you the pace of those games is about the same as these Finals. Funny that 30 fucking years went by and no one ever discounted that MJ stat but now all of the sudden pace matters so much. -
Dude the 90s in general were much slower than today and MJ never played a team in the Finals that plays near as fast as GS does save for maybe the Lakers though IIRC they were slowing down by then.allpurpleallgold said:
With all due respect this is fucking stupid. It's always been easier to get a triple double in a high tempo game. Just because it took you this long to figure that out doesn't take away from Lebron. You gonna comb through the record books to see which triple doubles were played at a high pace and don't count?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Tequilla had a bit of a good point for once.Tequilla said:
Highly disagree ... stats aren't everythingDoogles said:
First ever player to average triple double in finals history. This is the best he's ever been.Tequilla said:I don't know ... I might be willing to bet the field here ...
I really see similarities between the 87 and 88 seasons for Bird and where LBJ is right now ... both definitely great at their respective stages of their career but you could start seeing some cracks
In the high tempo era of the NBA, it's much easier to get a triple double because there are so many more possessions.
Having said that, LeBron's chinevitable decline is probably 2-3 years away.
Michael Jordan had a run of 7 straight triple doubles and 10 in 11 games. I'll bet you the pace of those games is about the same as these Finals. Funny that 30 fucking years went by and no one ever discounted that MJ stat but now all of the sudden pace matters so much.
Can't speak for Boobs but I've been discounting Oscar's triple double season because of pace of play for years. Pace makes a huge difference in counting stats.
-
I don't think the 4-1 series score reflected the passion on the floor. The Cavs aren't as far back as it seems and the Warriors aren't as far ahead.
Lebron the GM doesn't need to panic. He needs to get better wing shooters who can perform on the big stage.
It is sad as a fan that last night didn't make it 3-2 but there are no hypotheticals, Game 3 was what it was.
It's a long wait for next June. -
Agree Cleveland doesn't need to panic. I think they will though. Love was probably gone DAO anyway but he sealed it by not showing up offensively last night.RaceBannon said:I don't think the 4-1 series score reflected the passion on the floor. The Cavs aren't as far back as it seems and the Warriors aren't as far ahead.
Lebron the GM doesn't need to panic. He needs to get better wing shooters who can perform on the big stage.
It is sad as a fan that last night didn't make it 3-2 but there are no hypotheticals, Game 3 was what it was.
It's a long wait for next June.
Cleveland's big issue isn't needing more shooters, it's needing more defenders. They can survive with Irving being the weak link defensively. They can't survive with James and Shumpert being the only defenders on the team. They need to add multiple 3 and D guys so they don't lose shooting while improving the defense. Not sure they can pull it off.
Pemmy for your thoughts on All Star Tristan Thompson? -
Thompson is a foundation of the team. And an all star. What's your point?
-
He was a no show for like four out of five games. Just checking to see if you still had his back.RaceBannon said:Thompson is a foundation of the team. And an all star. What's your point?
Nice to see you haven't moved. -
In the 1988-89 season, the year Jordan had those triple double numbers, the Chicago Bulls played at a pace of 97 possessions per 48 minutes. The Warriors played at 99 this season and the Cavs 96.dnc said:
Dude the 90s in general were much slower than today and MJ never played a team in the Finals that plays near as fast as GS does save for maybe the Lakers though IIRC they were slowing down by then.allpurpleallgold said:
With all due respect this is fucking stupid. It's always been easier to get a triple double in a high tempo game. Just because it took you this long to figure that out doesn't take away from Lebron. You gonna comb through the record books to see which triple doubles were played at a high pace and don't count?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Tequilla had a bit of a good point for once.Tequilla said:
Highly disagree ... stats aren't everythingDoogles said:
First ever player to average triple double in finals history. This is the best he's ever been.Tequilla said:I don't know ... I might be willing to bet the field here ...
I really see similarities between the 87 and 88 seasons for Bird and where LBJ is right now ... both definitely great at their respective stages of their career but you could start seeing some cracks
In the high tempo era of the NBA, it's much easier to get a triple double because there are so many more possessions.
Having said that, LeBron's chinevitable decline is probably 2-3 years away.
Michael Jordan had a run of 7 straight triple doubles and 10 in 11 games. I'll bet you the pace of those games is about the same as these Finals. Funny that 30 fucking years went by and no one ever discounted that MJ stat but now all of the sudden pace matters so much.
Can't speak for Boobs but I've been discounting Oscar's triple double season because of pace of play for years. Pace makes a huge difference in counting stats.
Discounting Oscar's triple double is Bill Simmons fucking stupid. You literally can't average a triple double at a slow pace. We know this because no one has ever done it. Taking away from players like Westbrook and Oscar makes no sense because if it was so easy to average a triple double just because you play at a fast pace then they wouldn't be the only guys to ever do it. -
Nice catch on the 80's MJ. Pre 90's/pre triangle they obviously played a lot faster than the MJ who was winning titles.allpurpleallgold said:
In the 1988-89 season, the year Jordan had those triple double numbers, the Chicago Bulls played at a pace of 97 possessions per 48 minutes. The Warriors played at 99 this season and the Cavs 96.dnc said:
Dude the 90s in general were much slower than today and MJ never played a team in the Finals that plays near as fast as GS does save for maybe the Lakers though IIRC they were slowing down by then.allpurpleallgold said:
With all due respect this is fucking stupid. It's always been easier to get a triple double in a high tempo game. Just because it took you this long to figure that out doesn't take away from Lebron. You gonna comb through the record books to see which triple doubles were played at a high pace and don't count?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Tequilla had a bit of a good point for once.Tequilla said:
Highly disagree ... stats aren't everythingDoogles said:
First ever player to average triple double in finals history. This is the best he's ever been.Tequilla said:I don't know ... I might be willing to bet the field here ...
I really see similarities between the 87 and 88 seasons for Bird and where LBJ is right now ... both definitely great at their respective stages of their career but you could start seeing some cracks
In the high tempo era of the NBA, it's much easier to get a triple double because there are so many more possessions.
Having said that, LeBron's chinevitable decline is probably 2-3 years away.
Michael Jordan had a run of 7 straight triple doubles and 10 in 11 games. I'll bet you the pace of those games is about the same as these Finals. Funny that 30 fucking years went by and no one ever discounted that MJ stat but now all of the sudden pace matters so much.
Can't speak for Boobs but I've been discounting Oscar's triple double season because of pace of play for years. Pace makes a huge difference in counting stats.
Discounting Oscar's triple double is Bill Simmons fucking stupid. You literally can't average a triple double at a slow pace. We know this because no one has ever done it. Taking away from players like Westbrook and Oscar makes no sense because if it was so easy to average a triple double just because you play at a fast pace then they wouldn't be the only guys to ever do it.
I think Westbrook's triple double season is more impressive than Big O's since he had less possessions to do it. Doesn't mean O's isn't impressive, but I've heard people argue he's the GOAT because of it, and he's just not. That's what I meant by discounting it. It has to be put in context. It's still damned impressive, without question. -
I honestly don't even understand the need for context. To me it's like if guy had 30 rebounds and you said "yeah but the other team missed a lot of shots". Like no shit Sherlock.
Doesn't Tequilla seem like the guy that used to argue Oscar was the GOAT? He doesn't now obviously because he read some analytics book or went to the Sloan Conference or whatever. But I'm like 99% sure at some point he wrote a 10,000 word essay on how the Big O was the Big Goat. -
I don't recall that but that would make sense.allpurpleallgold said:I honestly don't even understand the need for context. To me it's like if guy had 30 rebounds and you said "yeah but the other team missed a lot of shots". Like no shit Sherlock.
Doesn't Tequilla seem like the guy that used to argue Oscar was the GOAT? He doesn't now obviously because he read some analytics book or went to the Sloan Conference or whatever. But I'm like 99% sure at some point he wrote a 10,000 word essay on how the Big O was the Big Goat.
I do know Tequilla hates hates hates analytics. -
Of course he does. I should have know.dnc said:
I don't recall that but that would make sense.allpurpleallgold said:I honestly don't even understand the need for context. To me it's like if guy had 30 rebounds and you said "yeah but the other team missed a lot of shots". Like no shit Sherlock.
Doesn't Tequilla seem like the guy that used to argue Oscar was the GOAT? He doesn't now obviously because he read some analytics book or went to the Sloan Conference or whatever. But I'm like 99% sure at some point he wrote a 10,000 word essay on how the Big O was the Big Goat.
I do know Tequilla hates hates hates analytics. -
Kevin Love sucks.
-
The Cavs aren't far behind the Warriors, but LeBron is getting older and Kyrie is kind of injury prone.
They have to get rid of Kevin Love. LeBron is a PF. -
Agree with you that the gap isn't insurmountable ...RaceBannon said:I don't think the 4-1 series score reflected the passion on the floor. The Cavs aren't as far back as it seems and the Warriors aren't as far ahead.
Lebron the GM doesn't need to panic. He needs to get better wing shooters who can perform on the big stage.
It is sad as a fan that last night didn't make it 3-2 but there are no hypotheticals, Game 3 was what it was.
It's a long wait for next June.
But the Cavs desperately need more role players that can effectively play on both ends of the court ... their lack of depth and defense lost them this series -
I've never been in the Big O campallpurpleallgold said:I honestly don't even understand the need for context. To me it's like if guy had 30 rebounds and you said "yeah but the other team missed a lot of shots". Like no shit Sherlock.
Doesn't Tequilla seem like the guy that used to argue Oscar was the GOAT? He doesn't now obviously because he read some analytics book or went to the Sloan Conference or whatever. But I'm like 99% sure at some point he wrote a 10,000 word essay on how the Big O was the Big Goat. -
I hate analytics from the standpoint of relying on them to tell you the outcome ...dnc said:
I don't recall that but that would make sense.allpurpleallgold said:I honestly don't even understand the need for context. To me it's like if guy had 30 rebounds and you said "yeah but the other team missed a lot of shots". Like no shit Sherlock.
Doesn't Tequilla seem like the guy that used to argue Oscar was the GOAT? He doesn't now obviously because he read some analytics book or went to the Sloan Conference or whatever. But I'm like 99% sure at some point he wrote a 10,000 word essay on how the Big O was the Big Goat.
I do know Tequilla hates hates hates analytics.
I embrace them from the standpoint of informing/confirming what you are seeing ...
I don't think there are a lot of great defensive metrics out there yet ...
If there's a test case for my disdain of metrics it was the Houston/SA series this year -
More on the analytics side and why I'm not a huge believer in utilizing them to make huge conclusions ... a lot of it stems from trying to understand what the metric is measuring.
One stat that actually makes a lot of sense to me is isolating the influence a player has on his team's offense through some kind of usage stat. I don't necessarily think that just looking at shot attempts is the right metric because it has a lot of skew tendencies to it.
Looking at basketball reference, there's a stat for usage rate that is defined as an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by the player while he was on the court. First, you lose me at using estimate as it automatically tells me that it isn't well defined or measurable. Second, because there isn't a clear definition or any kind of standard baseline (i.e. usage as a percentage of a total like 100%), it makes it difficult to make any comparisons across teams. But even more importantly, when I look at results and then compare back to what I saw with my eyes and traditional stats, the metric breaks for me.
LBJ and Kyrie accounted for more than 50% of Cleveland's shots for the series. Watching the series, by and large the balance of their offense was the ball in their collective hands and then dictating the possession through their 1 on 1 play. Adding up their combined usage rate to over 60% would make sense to me to the extent that the metric was capped at 100%. Looking at the usage rate for Kevin Love, his usage rate was about 1/3 less than what LBJ/Kryie's rates were. Does that make sense watching the game? Love's involvement in the offense was primarily as an end user of an offensive possession leading into the shot. There weren't a lot of drop downs to him in the post where he was leading into shots or passes to teammates (averaged 1 assist per game). Some of his usage likely came from his offensive rebounding. Intuitively something doesn't feel right with these numbers.
Then looking at Golden State, it makes sense that both Curry and Durant had the highest usage rates on Golden State. Durant's usage was more of an end user to the offense whereas Curry tends to have the ball in his hands a bit more. Durant taking more shots comparatively to Curry makes their usage rates evening out make some sense to me. In neither case did I feel that they were controlling their offense in a similar manner to what LBJ/Kyrie were for their squad. The one that really stands out to me is Draymond Green's usage rate ... particularly compared to Kevin Love's (Love's is higher). It's hard to watch Golden State play and not realize what a significant part of the offense Green is with his ability to facilitate the ball movement for Curry, Durant, and Thompson. I'd be willing to bet that Green had the ball in his hands during the series more than Love did and was a far more vital member of his team's offense. Yet the usage rate was lower. Doesn't feel right.
And that's a microcosm of how I struggle with usage rates particularly as it pertains to comparing players and eras against each other. For example, if you go back and look at the stats of the 1987 Finals, does anybody really buy that Kareem was used by the Lakers more than Magic? -
DisagreeTequilla said:More on the analytics side and why I'm not a huge believer in utilizing them to make huge conclusions ... a lot of it stems from trying to understand what the metric is measuring.
One stat that actually makes a lot of sense to me is isolating the influence a player has on his team's offense through some kind of usage stat. I don't necessarily think that just looking at shot attempts is the right metric because it has a lot of skew tendencies to it.
Looking at basketball reference, there's a stat for usage rate that is defined as an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by the player while he was on the court. First, you lose me at using estimate as it automatically tells me that it isn't well defined or measurable. Second, because there isn't a clear definition or any kind of standard baseline (i.e. usage as a percentage of a total like 100%), it makes it difficult to make any comparisons across teams. But even more importantly, when I look at results and then compare back to what I saw with my eyes and traditional stats, the metric breaks for me.
LBJ and Kyrie accounted for more than 50% of Cleveland's shots for the series. Watching the series, by and large the balance of their offense was the ball in their collective hands and then dictating the possession through their 1 on 1 play. Adding up their combined usage rate to over 60% would make sense to me to the extent that the metric was capped at 100%. Looking at the usage rate for Kevin Love, his usage rate was about 1/3 less than what LBJ/Kryie's rates were. Does that make sense watching the game? Love's involvement in the offense was primarily as an end user of an offensive possession leading into the shot. There weren't a lot of drop downs to him in the post where he was leading into shots or passes to teammates (averaged 1 assist per game). Some of his usage likely came from his offensive rebounding. Intuitively something doesn't feel right with these numbers.
Then looking at Golden State, it makes sense that both Curry and Durant had the highest usage rates on Golden State. Durant's usage was more of an end user to the offense whereas Curry tends to have the ball in his hands a bit more. Durant taking more shots comparatively to Curry makes their usage rates evening out make some sense to me. In neither case did I feel that they were controlling their offense in a similar manner to what LBJ/Kyrie were for their squad. The one that really stands out to me is Draymond Green's usage rate ... particularly compared to Kevin Love's (Love's is higher). It's hard to watch Golden State play and not realize what a significant part of the offense Green is with his ability to facilitate the ball movement for Curry, Durant, and Thompson. I'd be willing to bet that Green had the ball in his hands during the series more than Love did and was a far more vital member of his team's offense. Yet the usage rate was lower. Doesn't feel right.
And that's a microcosm of how I struggle with usage rates particularly as it pertains to comparing players and eras against each other. For example, if you go back and look at the stats of the 1987 Finals, does anybody really buy that Kareem was used by the Lakers more than Magic? -
I think what @Tequilla is trying to say here is:Tequilla said:More on the analytics side and why I'm not a huge believer in utilizing them to make huge conclusions ... a lot of it stems from trying to understand what the metric is measuring.
One stat that actually makes a lot of sense to me is isolating the influence a player has on his team's offense through some kind of usage stat. I don't necessarily think that just looking at shot attempts is the right metric because it has a lot of skew tendencies to it.
Looking at basketball reference, there's a stat for usage rate that is defined as an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by the player while he was on the court. First, you lose me at using estimate as it automatically tells me that it isn't well defined or measurable. Second, because there isn't a clear definition or any kind of standard baseline (i.e. usage as a percentage of a total like 100%), it makes it difficult to make any comparisons across teams. But even more importantly, when I look at results and then compare back to what I saw with my eyes and traditional stats, the metric breaks for me.
LBJ and Kyrie accounted for more than 50% of Cleveland's shots for the series. Watching the series, by and large the balance of their offense was the ball in their collective hands and then dictating the possession through their 1 on 1 play. Adding up their combined usage rate to over 60% would make sense to me to the extent that the metric was capped at 100%. Looking at the usage rate for Kevin Love, his usage rate was about 1/3 less than what LBJ/Kryie's rates were. Does that make sense watching the game? Love's involvement in the offense was primarily as an end user of an offensive possession leading into the shot. There weren't a lot of drop downs to him in the post where he was leading into shots or passes to teammates (averaged 1 assist per game). Some of his usage likely came from his offensive rebounding. Intuitively something doesn't feel right with these numbers.
Then looking at Golden State, it makes sense that both Curry and Durant had the highest usage rates on Golden State. Durant's usage was more of an end user to the offense whereas Curry tends to have the ball in his hands a bit more. Durant taking more shots comparatively to Curry makes their usage rates evening out make some sense to me. In neither case did I feel that they were controlling their offense in a similar manner to what LBJ/Kyrie were for their squad. The one that really stands out to me is Draymond Green's usage rate ... particularly compared to Kevin Love's (Love's is higher). It's hard to watch Golden State play and not realize what a significant part of the offense Green is with his ability to facilitate the ball movement for Curry, Durant, and Thompson. I'd be willing to bet that Green had the ball in his hands during the series more than Love did and was a far more vital member of his team's offense. Yet the usage rate was lower. Doesn't feel right.
And that's a microcosm of how I struggle with usage rates particularly as it pertains to comparing players and eras against each other. For example, if you go back and look at the stats of the 1987 Finals, does anybody really buy that Kareem was used by the Lakers more than Magic?
Golden State shared the ball and Cleveland didn't. And when one of their stars has the ball in their hand, they do things like cutting to the basket or screening instead of standing around with there hand in their jock.
You know, like a team, instead of a stat-padding control freak/GM/Player/Coach like Bron Bron.
-
Cavs need to get younger and more athletic Having a bunch of old ring chasers as backups didn't help them.
-
The TL, DR version yesPurpleThrobber said:
I think what @Tequilla is trying to say here is:Tequilla said:More on the analytics side and why I'm not a huge believer in utilizing them to make huge conclusions ... a lot of it stems from trying to understand what the metric is measuring.
One stat that actually makes a lot of sense to me is isolating the influence a player has on his team's offense through some kind of usage stat. I don't necessarily think that just looking at shot attempts is the right metric because it has a lot of skew tendencies to it.
Looking at basketball reference, there's a stat for usage rate that is defined as an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by the player while he was on the court. First, you lose me at using estimate as it automatically tells me that it isn't well defined or measurable. Second, because there isn't a clear definition or any kind of standard baseline (i.e. usage as a percentage of a total like 100%), it makes it difficult to make any comparisons across teams. But even more importantly, when I look at results and then compare back to what I saw with my eyes and traditional stats, the metric breaks for me.
LBJ and Kyrie accounted for more than 50% of Cleveland's shots for the series. Watching the series, by and large the balance of their offense was the ball in their collective hands and then dictating the possession through their 1 on 1 play. Adding up their combined usage rate to over 60% would make sense to me to the extent that the metric was capped at 100%. Looking at the usage rate for Kevin Love, his usage rate was about 1/3 less than what LBJ/Kryie's rates were. Does that make sense watching the game? Love's involvement in the offense was primarily as an end user of an offensive possession leading into the shot. There weren't a lot of drop downs to him in the post where he was leading into shots or passes to teammates (averaged 1 assist per game). Some of his usage likely came from his offensive rebounding. Intuitively something doesn't feel right with these numbers.
Then looking at Golden State, it makes sense that both Curry and Durant had the highest usage rates on Golden State. Durant's usage was more of an end user to the offense whereas Curry tends to have the ball in his hands a bit more. Durant taking more shots comparatively to Curry makes their usage rates evening out make some sense to me. In neither case did I feel that they were controlling their offense in a similar manner to what LBJ/Kyrie were for their squad. The one that really stands out to me is Draymond Green's usage rate ... particularly compared to Kevin Love's (Love's is higher). It's hard to watch Golden State play and not realize what a significant part of the offense Green is with his ability to facilitate the ball movement for Curry, Durant, and Thompson. I'd be willing to bet that Green had the ball in his hands during the series more than Love did and was a far more vital member of his team's offense. Yet the usage rate was lower. Doesn't feel right.
And that's a microcosm of how I struggle with usage rates particularly as it pertains to comparing players and eras against each other. For example, if you go back and look at the stats of the 1987 Finals, does anybody really buy that Kareem was used by the Lakers more than Magic?
Golden State shared the ball and Cleveland didn't. And when one of their stars has the ball in their hand, they do things like cutting to the basket or screening instead of standing around with there hand in their jock.
You know, like a team, instead of a stat-padding control freak/GM/Player/Coach like Bron Bron. -
He no showed for 3 of 5 games on offense. He was efficient as hell in game 2 and put up 30 in game 3. And played fantastic defense the whole series.dnc said:
He was a no show for like four out of five games. Just checking to see if you still had his back.RaceBannon said:Thompson is a foundation of the team. And an all star. What's your point?
Nice to see you haven't moved. -
I don't think we're talking about the same playerNEsnake12 said:
He no showed for 3 of 5 games on offense. He was efficient as hell in game 2 and put up 30 in game 3. And played fantastic defense the whole series.dnc said:
He was a no show for like four out of five games. Just checking to see if you still had his back.RaceBannon said:Thompson is a foundation of the team. And an all star. What's your point?
Nice to see you haven't moved. -
Fuck me, I assumed Klay not Tristan.dnc said:
I don't think we're talking about the same playerNEsnake12 said:
He no showed for 3 of 5 games on offense. He was efficient as hell in game 2 and put up 30 in game 3. And played fantastic defense the whole series.dnc said:
He was a no show for like four out of five games. Just checking to see if you still had his back.RaceBannon said:Thompson is a foundation of the team. And an all star. What's your point?
Nice to see you haven't moved.
