Yes, Offensive, IMHO

boy did i blow it---I said cavs by 10. Mea Culpas all around. OT---what do the lawyers say??' if you have the facts-argue the facts. If you don't, bang the table." Any lawyers on this cringe-worthy site?

helltopay1 said:

---

boy did i blow it---I said cavs by 10. Mea Culpas all around. OT---what do the lawyers say??' if you have the facts-argue the facts. If you don't, bang the table." Any lawyers on this cringe-worthy site?

---

Bang harder than the dinner bell on the Ponderosa and Bonzo's drum solo on Moby Dick.

HoopDreams said:

---

is this a foul on lebron or curry?

https://instagr.am/p/BjtNkWUh4Ui

---

In a perfect world that is an O foul because Lebron lunges into Curry and then Curry sells it by overreacting and he hooks Lebron's arm on his way down to break his flopping fall. However, Lebron and Harden usually initiate far more contact than a quick lunge (a shoulder, stiff arm or forearm shove) and it is never called. If they allowed wimps like Curry to stop drives like that, Lebron and Harden would only average 20 points a game.

bearister said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

is this a foul on lebron or curry?

https://instagr.am/p/BjtNkWUh4Ui

---

In a perfect world that is an O foul because Lebron lunges into Curry and then Curry sells it by overreacting and he hooks Lebron's arm on his way down to break his flopping fall. However, Lebron and Harden usually initiate far more contact than a quick lunge (a shoulder, stiff arm or forearm shove) and it is never called. If they allowed wimps like Curry to stop drives like that, Lebron and Harden would only average 20 points a game.

---

The officials had three options: O foul, D foul or no-call. If I had to put a weighting to it, it would be 50% no-call, 40% O-foul and 10% D-foul. Bearister is spot on and the fact that a D-foul was called, reflects today's style of play (which I generally enjoy). Curry played him close (which is good D), but the only foul was the arm-hook. That was more likely Lebron chicken-winging him and selling it.

That was an absolute charge.
Bully ball, they call it.
There is no way that a guy of Curry's size could withstand the bull rush of Lebron, who delivered the initial blow. That their arms got tangled AFTER that should not matter.

Clearly, Lebron got that reversal as a gift for what happened the prior game.

Was it a quote by Kyle Korver? He said when he played against Lebron that the guy got every call, but when he joined him and saw how much contact and physicality he endured he felt the opposite, that Lebron didn't get enough calls. I get it. He does endure a lot of physical play, but he also initiates a ton of it. On this play: charge!

BeachedBear said:

---

bearister said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

is this a foul on lebron or curry?

https://instagr.am/p/BjtNkWUh4Ui

---

In a perfect world that is an O foul because Lebron lunges into Curry and then Curry sells it by overreacting and he hooks Lebron's arm on his way down to break his flopping fall. However, Lebron and Harden usually initiate far more contact than a quick lunge (a shoulder, stiff arm or forearm shove) and it is never called. If they allowed wimps like Curry to stop drives like that, Lebron and Harden would only average 20 points a game.

---

The officials had three options: O foul, D foul or no-call. If I had to put a weighting to it, it would be 50% no-call, 40% O-foul and 10% D-foul. Bearister is spot on and the fact that a D-foul was called, reflects today's style of play (which I generally enjoy). Curry played him close (which is good D), but the only foul was the arm-hook. That was more likely Lebron chicken-winging him and selling it.

---

Curry's feet wasn't set and he tried to tackle LeBron like Deion Sanders out there. D foul. Easy call.

hanky1 said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

bearister said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

is this a foul on lebron or curry?

https://instagr.am/p/BjtNkWUh4Ui

---

In a perfect world that is an O foul because Lebron lunges into Curry and then Curry sells it by overreacting and he hooks Lebron's arm on his way down to break his flopping fall. However, Lebron and Harden usually initiate far more contact than a quick lunge (a shoulder, stiff arm or forearm shove) and it is never called. If they allowed wimps like Curry to stop drives like that, Lebron and Harden would only average 20 points a game.

---

The officials had three options: O foul, D foul or no-call. If I had to put a weighting to it, it would be 50% no-call, 40% O-foul and 10% D-foul. Bearister is spot on and the fact that a D-foul was called, reflects today's style of play (which I generally enjoy). Curry played him close (which is good D), but the only foul was the arm-hook. That was more likely Lebron chicken-winging him and selling it.

---

Curry's feet wasn't set and he tried to tackle LeBron like Deion Sanders out there. D foul. Easy call.

---

Perhaps - not sure I would call it an EASY CALL, since at least one of the Refs called it an O foul (and likely why I retired quickly as a basketball ref). But his feet WERE set, until 270 lb James made contact with 180 lb Curry and lifted him off the ground. I'll also admit, that I am a W's fan and am jaded by the calls that players like Harden and James get. After the game, one of the Cavs players made the comment that they thought James got all the calls until they came to the Cavs and realized that James never gets any calls!

My original point is that it is pretty subjective and part of the game.

hanky1 said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

bearister said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

is this a foul on lebron or curry?

https://instagr.am/p/BjtNkWUh4Ui

---

In a perfect world that is an O foul because Lebron lunges into Curry and then Curry sells it by overreacting and he hooks Lebron's arm on his way down to break his flopping fall. However, Lebron and Harden usually initiate far more contact than a quick lunge (a shoulder, stiff arm or forearm shove) and it is never called. If they allowed wimps like Curry to stop drives like that, Lebron and Harden would only average 20 points a game.

---

The officials had three options: O foul, D foul or no-call. If I had to put a weighting to it, it would be 50% no-call, 40% O-foul and 10% D-foul. Bearister is spot on and the fact that a D-foul was called, reflects today's style of play (which I generally enjoy). Curry played him close (which is good D), but the only foul was the arm-hook. That was more likely Lebron chicken-winging him and selling it.

---

Curry's feet wasn't set and he tried to tackle LeBron like Deion Sanders out there. D foul. Easy call.

---

You have to be kidding

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jun/07/golden-state-warriors-nba-finals-game-3?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

hanky1 said:

---

Curry's feet wasn't set and he tried to tackle LeBron like Deion Sanders out there. D foul. Easy call.

---

His feet weren't set, but he was going backward. It's not a requirement to stand like a statue and let Lebron drive over you like a tank. He was trying to hold ground but it was Lebron who initiated contact upon Curry's territory, which was yielded with steamrolling bumps charging drive.

It's a terrible aspect of the game to officiate. If you watch highlights from the early 70s or before, even the post guys barely touch each other. This is back to late 80s early 90s shovefest ball. I don't mind muscling for post positioning, but when Lebron drives, as here, he just shoves people out of the way. Look at his plays vs Livingston... he shoves him out of the way like a gnat, and Livingston has no chance because the refs won't allow him to.

I think that this play was a joke.

BeachedBear said:

---

My original point is that it is pretty subjective and part of the game.

---

There was nothing subjective about Durant's decisive bomb, hahaha.

Do the lads tank one tomorrow as a multi million dollar present to Lacob and ABC and a title win at home?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Discussed with wife this AM as we make our Friday night plans.

Better to give the Cavs a game, give Lacob a home game, celebrate at home.
However these Warriors want to step on Lebron and sweep him, so if the game is there for the taking, they will take it. However, if it gets away from them, they'll let it go.

I predict a sweep, Cavs appear done and so likely won't put up the required resistance.

I've been watching ESPN Get Up show on roku (play recent episodes whenever I like) during these playoffs. Jaylen Rose and Mike Greenberg with Ms. Beadle are good.
Also "The Jump" show with Rachel Nichols has been good NBA talk.

I look forward to the offseason moves.
They've all been discussing whether it's good for basketball to have the dominant Warriors, what moves teams and players make in response. The intrigue is not always on the court but the offseason decisions folks make can be just as strategically important as whether to play a switching D or not.

They also discuss things like modern ball vs center-centric ball from yesteryear. Good stuff.

I continue to be very much intrigued by the debate over all-time best styles of ball, best players.
I was watching video of stars from the 60s and 70s. What a joke. The refereeing is SO different. Rick Barry set a screen and was called for an offensive foul. Ticky tack galore stuff. Unrecognizable game compared to today. We debated the Lebron charge on curry play? Omg, give me a break.

The game where Barry scored 55? He's given wide open j's at the elbow. So soft.
Today we have 7 footers shooting contested 3's.

Lots of unathletic looking teammates out there. Erect, one handed dribbling.

I think any team today would destroy teams of yesteryear. Sorry, sfc.

In choosing my all-time team, I will have to lean heavily to modern players.

Discussion yesterday said that while the addition of Durant has absolutely made the Warriors better, the opposite is equally true. Durant is such a better player now than before, they discussed. So, it's cool for Durant to have great teammates so he can ratchet his game to the next level as well. What a luxury, for instance, to be able to try a 30 foot dagger, as he did to seal game 3.

KD joining GSW has upped his game. Watching Steph and Klay practice 35 foot J's, KD upped his game on trying to practice and get better at his 3's... beyond the line....

being around Draymond has upped his D as well.

Not to say KD's game would not have evolved staying at OKC or another team, but most certainly, joining GSW and the players he competes with daily at practice has improved his overall game..

Now what?? a few days of celebration and set sights on 3 peat..

who stays/who goes?
West ? does he return or retire? returns
McGee and ZaZa? i think one will get mid level exception that Nick Young got for 2017/18.
Looney? no (like Fetus, will get more $$ to sign elsewhere)
Nick Young? no


goGSW
goBears

Agree gobears. As for Zaza and McGee. I'd prefer McGee to stay, but I think he might get more $$$ elsewhere. Regardless, I think Zaza will be gone. Warriors don't need so many center that don't play minutes. The ones they keep should be young (with the exception of West - who I hope returns for another season).

Need Magee imo I doubt you can replace him through FA or the draft

Guys that are not scared of lebron are crucial to winning NBA championships
I don't envy Meyers job for this off season

going4roses said:

---

Need Magee imo I doubt you can replace him through FA or the draft

Guys that are not scared of lebron are crucial to winning NBA championships
I don't envy Meyers job for this off season

---

I totally envy Meyers job this offseason. Looks like he is having loads of fun considering they are throwing parades for the team he put together.

I was speaking on the numbers part only.

How can he maintain a championship caliber team with the moves that have to be made ... a good position but he will have to be crafty

going4roses said:

---

I was speaking on the numbers part only.

How can he maintain a championship caliber team with the moves that have to be made ... a good position but he will have to be crafty

---

It helps that Gruber/Lakob don't care about the luxury tax.

UrsaMajor said:

---

going4roses said:

---

I was speaking on the numbers part only.

How can he maintain a championship caliber team with the moves that have to be made ... a good position but he will have to be crafty

---

It helps that Gruber/Lakob don't care about the luxury tax.

---

So very true

concordtom said:

---

I continue to be very much intrigued by the debate over all-time best styles of ball, best players.
I was watching video of stars from the 60s and 70s. What a joke. The refereeing is SO different. Rick Barry set a screen and was called for an offensive foul. Ticky tack galore stuff. Unrecognizable game compared to today. We debated the Lebron charge on curry play? Omg, give me a break.

The game where Barry scored 55? He's given wide open j's at the elbow. So soft.
Today we have 7 footers shooting contested 3's.

Lots of unathletic looking teammates out there. Erect, one handed dribbling.

I think any team today would destroy teams of yesteryear. Sorry, sfc.

In choosing my all-time team, I will have to lean heavily to modern players.

---

I expected no less from you. But I'd definitely prescribe a visit to the ophthalmologist, as your eyesight is questionable.

And you also need to get a copy of the rules of basketball in the '60s and '70s and compare them to the rules of today. As Doctor J said two years ago at the PAC12 tournament when asked how he liked the modern players, he said, "They are very athletic, but they are allowed to do many things that we were not allowed to do. Or as one of Red Auerbach;s former players told me, when I asked him if he still watched basketball games, "No. I don't watch them. The walk, they palm it, and they charge. It's not basketball." Can you imagine Curry or Durant being able to break down a defender with out being able to palm the ball while doing it? Curry and Durant can palm it 3-4 times on the same drive. There was a reason not to allow palming the ball. It was to keep the playing field level, give the defender a chance at stopping the dribbler. Being able to palm the ball and walk with it, being able to hit a defender in the chest with your off-hand on the drive, being able to walk with the ball, and to top it off, the defender not being allowed to hand check the dribbler in any way, makes most drives to the basket a piece of cake for the offensive player. It is a near miracle that any defender can stop a drive by a star player like Curry or Durant.

Most of today's players would be ineffective playing with the restrictive rules of the '60s and '70s, just as most of yesteryear's players would be ineffective today playing with the freedom which modern players have on offense. The modern players to be effective, would have to give up old habits like palming, and learn to break down a defender by feints only, and dribbling without placing their hand under the ball. It would be difficult to break that habit. If the modern player were to play by the old rules, he would be constantly whistled for violations, just as the old-time player who tried to play today would foul out in the first quarter of every game playing defense with the habits and skills he learned to play with in his day. Each generation would have an awful time trying to unlearn the habits they played with, and learn new skills to play the game of the other generation.

I have no doubt that the best athletes of either generation could learn to play the different game of the other generation. The great players not only have great physical talent, but the also are the most creative players, and they would find a way to adapt, but it would still take years for them to unlearn the old skills and learn the new skills. And the great players are the most protected, seldom getting foul calls or violations, or fouling out of games. What was true of Chamberlain is true of Lebron in that sense. And many others. So the great ones could adapt to the game of any era.

What you don't realize is that you, the fan, and most fans are being played. Played by the leagues, owners, conferences, and players who have with a combination of plans which include marketing and regulations to give you a product which will entice you to give them ever increasing amounts of your yearly family budget. Of course a three point shot, a physical drive to the rim for a dunk, and spectacular dribbling and moves gets us excited, and we want more of it, even if we have to pay more for it next season. And they get you hooked by making the rules almost completely favoring the offense. The playing field is not level, and you like it that way, and want even more of it. And you will pay to see it.

Gone is the game of Wilt and Russell, or Newell and Imhoff, Wooden and Kareem. Gone are the dominant big men in the paint, who made it so difficult to score inside. Gone are the defenders like KC, or Clyde. All of these started playing in an era where most NBA teams struggled to survive, and many did not. It was the transitional players like Barry and the Doctor, Oscar and West, who made the game a little more popular with their creativity, and over time the league began to be profitable. The owners realized they could make it more profitable by changing the rules to favor offense, and manipulate fans to spend more money. It filtered down to the NCAA to create March Madness, and corresponding college rules to favor offense over defense. And with TV in every home, access to games, kids emulated their idols, practicing the fancy shots and moves, mostly ignoring the hard work of rebounding and defense, and ignoring the development of passing skills and court vision.

When Russell asked Chamberlain what he thought about the modern players, he said there we many very strong and athletic ones around, but "they don't play the correct way." I think basketball needs to find a way to get back to a game that does not tip the scales in favor of offense or defense. And reduce the number and scope of regulations. There are so many lines and semi-circles on the floor now, that players have to keep taking looks at their feet to determine where they are. Endless additional timeouts for advertising, all for making money. I don't watch the NBA much, as it is blatantly commercial. I watch college less now. A great game is being corrupted, and we are buying in. IMHO.

SFCB-----great article. You are easily at the top of this blogger class.

Excellent post, SFCity. I would only add that I think to a degree, it is cyclical. With the Warriors and Spurs (and to a lesser extent the Celtics) we are moving back toward a more interesting game. And while the game in Wilt's day was fantastic, the Bad Boy Pistons era was almost unwatchable.

Yes, SFCB is The Professor of the basketball board. In my opinion the degradation of the pro game was made that much easier by the fact that IMO the average NBA fan sitting in the stands doesn't know Jack sh@t about hoop. For a large percentage of them it is a social event. A place to be seen and to name drop about later. SHOWTIME! It seems like a lot of the fans spend most of the time starring into their laps at their phones. The real hoop fans are college fans, like we here at BI who spend endless hours breaking down and analyzing whatever the Hell that is that has been transpiring on Pete Newell Court these last few years.

bearister said:

---

The real hoop fans are college fans

---

A lot of the people on this forum are Warriors fans and they are definitely real hoop fans. Probably paid a lot more attention to the Warriors than they did to last year's train wreck too.

Yogi Bear said:

---

bearister said:

---

The real hoop fans are college fans

---

A lot of the people on this forum are Warriors fans and they are definitely real hoop fans. Probably paid a lot more attention to the Warriors than they did to last year's train wreck too.

---

I don't think they qualify as "average NBA fans."

The elite athlete of every era would adapt and use the training techniques /rules of the game of that era to be elite in the period they are in. (if a time machine was an option to fast forward or rewind time)

think of it.. 6 or 7 billion people, and each decade, there are 7 or so players that are better than 7 billion other people at the time... each of those 7 players are better than 1 billion other people in the world when they competed in their sport.

Each if placed in a different era would figure out how to excel using that era's training/science available for that period....

The debate how a player of years past would do today..... continues on... my view is they all would be elite of any era would be elite...

goBears

gobears said:

---

The elite athlete of every era would adapt and use the training techniques /rules of the game of that era to be elite in the period they are in. (if a time machine was an option to fast forward or rewind time)

think of it.. 6 or 7 billion people, and each decade, there are 7 or so players that are better than 7 billion other people at the time... each of those 7 players are better than 1 billion other people in the world when they competed in their sport.

Each if placed in a different era would figure out how to excel using that era's training/science available for that period....

The debate how a player of years past would do today..... continues on... my view is they all would be elite of any era would be elite...

goBears

---

This raises an interesting question, though. Records in all individual sports are better than before. In swimming or track and field, I can think of no record that is 20 or 30 years old. Bob Beamon's longjump record stood for a long time, but has since been broken. Certainly training methods and changes in technique are a major factor, but it is likely that other factors are at work as well--improved nutrition, genetics, etc.--that have led to improved physical performance. Example: Mark Spitz set 7 world records in the '72 Olympics. His winning times wouldn't have cracked the top 100 at US Olympic Trials in 2016. In fact, in some events, he wouldn't have won the California State high school meet.

UrsaMajor said:

---

gobears said:

---

The elite athlete of every era would adapt and use the training techniques /rules of the game of that era to be elite in the period they are in. (if a time machine was an option to fast forward or rewind time)

think of it.. 6 or 7 billion people, and each decade, there are 7 or so players that are better than 7 billion other people at the time... each of those 7 players are better than 1 billion other people in the world when they competed in their sport.

Each if placed in a different era would figure out how to excel using that era's training/science available for that period....

The debate how a player of years past would do today..... continues on... my view is they all would be elite of any era would be elite...

goBears

---

This raises an interesting question, though. Records in all individual sports are better than before. In swimming or track and field, I can think of no record that is 20 or 30 years old. Bob Beamon's longjump record stood for a long time, but has since been broken. Certainly training methods and changes in technique are a major factor, but it is likely that other factors are at work as well--improved nutrition, genetics, etc.--that have led to improved physical performance. Example: Mark Spitz set 7 world records in the '72 Olympics. His winning times wouldn't have cracked the top 100 at US Olympic Trials in 2016. In fact, in some events, he wouldn't have won the California State high school meet.

---

It's been a while, but there were some interesting articles a number of years back about average height in Netherlands (tallest in the world - yet not a basketball powerhouse) and the dramatic changes in average height in Japan since WWII. The Japanese article points out that genetics is much less impactful than previously thought. But epigenetics (in this particular case, nutrition/diet of the mothers during pregnancy and post natal support) have a much bigger impact.

And gobears is spot on about the elite being elite. I laugh when people say that Wilt or Kareem would have been inferior in today's game. Both of those guys (and many others) were simply elite competitors with incredible skills and gifts that would be at the top of whatever game.

Similarly, I'm confident that LeBron would be a dominant TE if he chose to play football.

SFCityBear said:

---

>"...Gone is the game of Wilt and Russell, or Newell and Imhoff, Wooden and Kareem. Gone are the dominant big men in the paint, who made it so difficult to score inside. Gone are the defenders like KC, or Clyde. All of these started playing in an era where most NBA teams struggled to survive, and many did not. It was the transitional players like Barry and the Doctor, Oscar and West, who made the game a little more popular with their creativity, and over time the league began to be profitable. The owners realized they could make it more profitable by changing the rules to favor offense, and manipulate fans to spend more money. It filtered down to the NCAA to create March Madness, and corresponding college rules to favor offense over defense. And with TV in every home, access to games, kids emulated their idols, practicing the fancy shots and moves, mostly ignoring the hard work of rebounding and defense, and ignoring the development of passing skills and court vision.

When Russell asked Chamberlain what he thought about the modern players, he said there we many very strong and athletic ones around, but "they don't play the correct way." I think basketball needs to find a way to get back to a game that does not tip the scales in favor of offense or defense. And reduce the number and scope of regulations. There are so many lines and semi-circles on the floor now, that players have to keep taking looks at their feet to determine where they are. Endless additional timeouts for advertising, all for making money. I don't watch the NBA much, as it is blatantly commercial. I watch college less now. A great game is being corrupted, and we are buying in. IMHO..."<

---

I agree, point made. I find the modern professional game most aggravating for what you've said about traveling, palming, hooking, etc.

Still, one on one, it's hard to stop a good drop step cross-over move in any era.