Western Conference Finals: #1 Warriors vs. #3 Thunder

[Telemachus]

So what that all indicates is that it doesn't really matter who coaches the team as long as Steph Curry is healthy and plays. Thanks for further proving my point.

As for the improved ORTG, that's easily explained by not only Steph playing and improving his game, but Klay Thompson and Draymond Green stepping it up. That was already occurring before Kerr ever signed his 1st contract.

The biggest difference between Kerr and Jackson was their offensive schemes. Under Jackson, GS was an iso heavy offense with only one player who was decent at creating his own shot. Kerr changed them into a team that used lot more ball movement, which made almost everyone a better offensive player (including Curry).

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I don't think that the question was silly, at all. @Bricklayer was making the claim that the game is dying, from an aesthetic point of view, and your rebuttal was based on ratings/revenue.

Brick said that the rise of the three point shot was "objectively killing the game". My objection is to the word "objectively" being used here. If he had said "killing the game", he's probably expressing an opinion (killing the game "to him"), no big deal. But he said "objectively" on a subject that is clearly subjective - that of the aesthetics of the game. Whether the game is aesthetically better played by bangers or by jump shooters is clearly opinion - objectivity doesn't enter into it.

In order to at least be a little less drive-by in my comment and to articulate my argument, I then pointed out (or tried to) that to properly use the word "objectively" in "objectively killing the game" you would have to be talking about a situation where there is actually evidence that the number of three-point shots taken is causing the league to figuratively die (there really is only a figurative "death" possible here, not a literal one). Thus, if there were evidence that the number of three point shots taken was actually driving the league into financial trouble and causing loss of viewership, then such a statement would be reasonable. I have never seen any reason to believe that this is the case, or even might be the case.

I was not referring to your question per se when I used the word "silly". You basically asked me to numerically counter a statement that had not been numerically argued in the first place. That would be, if anything, a reversal of the burden of proof. My response to you was intended to convey the idea that I'm certainly not going to try to disprove what I consider to be the silly notion here - that the increase in three point shots is proven to objectively be hurting the league's financial future/existence. In fact, despite his later insistence that he intended the word "objectively" I would still doubt that even Brick would make the claim that such a thing can be proven. Perhaps he would claim that, and perhaps he can numerically argue it, in which case I would consider such evidence, but I'm not holding my breath.

I want to know why you think that the numbers are a valid refutation, relative to Brick's argument, and how you correct for margin of error, given the changes in access and availability?

I don't think that the numbers are a valid refutation. I don't actually think that an aesthetic argument can be refuted at all. But I think that the word objectively is misused if employed in aesthetic arguments. The case regarding "numbers" was simply used to illustrate how the word "objectively" could properly be applied. Since such an argument has not actually been put forward, I'm certainly not going to try to refute it, and that would include correcting for anything.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

But I think that the word objectively is misused if employed in aesthetic arguments. The case regarding "numbers" was simply used to illustrate how the word "objectively" could properly be applied. Since such an argument has not actually been put forward, I'm certainly not going to try to refute it, and that would include correcting for anything.

It might just be me, but I enjoy the irony arising from the fact that you are placing a lawyer's choice of words under the proverbial microscope.

Just out of curiosity, Capt., but what profession are you in?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Just out of curiosity, Capt., but what profession are you in?

I proverbially wear a lot of hats. There could be a very long answer but the short answer is that I am a scientist. My gig on the Grammar Police is unpaid.

 

[KingMilz]

No. Or, I don't know, maybe "give credit" means something different to you than it does to me. To me, "giving credit" would involve co-signing what they're about, and I'm not doing that. I stipulate that the Warriors are the defending champions, and that they have a great player, and that they play together, and that they broke the record for wins during the regular season, and that's as far as I'm going.

Golden State won this series because the Thunder choked; I don't care how many wins you had, you don't come back from 3-1 without some choking being involved.

No GS won the series because they won 4 games and the Thunder won 3.....has nothing to do with chocking I could easily say the Warriors were chocking being down 3-1 and came back because they stopped chocking that makes no sense. The Warriors are a better/smarter team and can dig themselves out of holes it's as simple as that and they deserve all the credit for coming back and winning....

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

It's not even remotely as simple as that; Golden State is a smarter team, and Oklahoma City choked (I will stipulate that they did not "chock").

 

[Padrino]

Objectively was used on purpose.

The NBA game has always had certain characteristics. The NBA's war on big men, physical play, etc. has been eroding those characteristics, to such a degree that I could already, today, start a new league and have it look more like any NBA before 2000 or so more than the current one does.

But let this go on to the point, which btw the unending march of the numbers suggest it eventually will, when 3pt shooting reigns completely supreme, and everything else is just what you do when you get unlucky and can't get a three, and then that has nothing to do with the NBA game at all. Just slapping an old logo, of a player who wouldn't recognize that game either, on the product doesn't make it the same game.

There used to be a good set of NBA owners at the core who saw themselves as stewards of the game to a degree. I get the feeling the money has chased that sort of idealism away, and now the new guys would seriously consider neon lines with giant blinking x3!!! signs if it would earn them a few extra bucks. Just a soulless money making endeavor. The next few years will be telling. Until this recent explosion it had looked like 3pt shooting had finally stabilized at about 20-22% of all shots, that was historically heavy, but something you could work with. D'Antoni's Suns against Pop's Spurs, see who wins. But thing have gotten very out of hand very quickly. As mentioned, at current rates in 3 years threes will be 1/3 of all shots as the area under the arc rapidly becomes a ghost town.

you and i are certainly not in disagreement on this issue:

Four hundred miles south of Oracle Arena sits the gym inside Chino Hills High School, the only place in the nation where more conventionally bad shots have been attempted this year. Chino Hills is the home of the Ball family — three brothers and their basketball-minded parents — who are intent on stretching the fabric of basketball as we know it, one 35-footer at a time. LaVar is the patriarch, and the mind behind the madness.

“My thing is, a bad shot is a shot you don’t practice,” LaVar Ball told me. “If you practice shooting from 30, 40 feet, that [can be] a good shot. It’s better to shoot a 30-footer with nobody in your face and go through your technique and your form, as opposed to shooting right on the 3-point line with a hand in your face.”

https://theringer.com/steph-curry-ball-brothers-chino-hills-c4a7719b22e9#.12mk3krhr

 

[Padrino]

I proverbially wear a lot of hats. There could be a very long answer but the short answer is that I am a scientist. My gig on the Grammar Police is unpaid.

 

[Bricklayer]

http://da.radio.cbssports.com/2016/06/01/scot-pollard-warriors-have-cheat-code/

 

[jalfa]

Objectively was used on purpose.

The NBA game has always had certain characteristics. The NBA's war on big men, physical play, etc. has been eroding those characteristics, to such a degree that I could already, today, start a new league and have it look more like any NBA before 2000 or so more than the current one does.

But let this go on to the point, which btw the unending march of the numbers suggest it eventually will, when 3pt shooting reigns completely supreme, and everything else is just what you do when you get unlucky and can't get a three, and then that has nothing to do with the NBA game at all. Just slapping an old logo, of a player who wouldn't recognize that game either, on the product doesn't make it the same game.

There used to be a good set of NBA owners at the core who saw themselves as stewards of the game to a degree. I get the feeling the money has chased that sort of idealism away, and now the new guys would seriously consider neon lines with giant blinking x3!!! signs if it would earn them a few extra bucks. Just a soulless money making endeavor. The next few years will be telling. Until this recent explosion it had looked like 3pt shooting had finally stabilized at about 20-22% of all shots, that was historically heavy, but something you could work with. D'Antoni's Suns against Pop's Spurs, see who wins. But thing have gotten very out of hand very quickly. As mentioned, at current rates in 3 years threes will be 1/3 of all shots as the area under the arc rapidly becomes a ghost town.

funnily, said player is one of the architects of this Warriors team, so you can actually place some of the blame directly at his feet.