Moderators: infinite11285, Domejandro, Harry Garris, ken6199, Dirk, bisme37, KingDavid, zimpy27, bwgood77, cupcakesnake
web123888 wrote:Wise people would've put in their Nuggets series and conference winner bets as soon as they went down 2-0 and odds were spectacular. $$$$$$
Pachinko_ wrote:p0peye wrote:Pachinko_ wrote:Jumping is overrated
Probably running too
Jokić can run like a gazelle when he wants too, as long as its a straight line run. Most of the bigs struggle to keep up with him and its how Nuggets frequently kill teams in transition.
he's a selective runner
only when stars align and the culture is just right
dhsilv2 wrote:Pachinko_ wrote:p0peye wrote:
Jokić can run like a gazelle when he wants too, as long as its a straight line run. Most of the bigs struggle to keep up with him and its how Nuggets frequently kill teams in transition.
he's a selective runner
only when stars align and the culture is just right
Selective? He runs about as much as anyone in the league. He gasses other big men with his constant movement.
What a waste of money to hedge the bet that would never happen. I put 100% of my funds on game 3 for a 6 figure bananza pay day. Also had on Jokic winning MVP again before the playoffs started, like taking candy from a fool LolSsj16 wrote:web123888 wrote:Wise people would've put in their Nuggets series and conference winner bets as soon as they went down 2-0 and odds were spectacular. $$$$$$
I put money down when they were down 2-0 to win the finals with 15 to 1 odds. I hedged by betting Wolves to win the finals as well.
WentzerWuver wrote:What a waste of money to hedge the bet that would never happen. I put 100% of my funds on game 3 for a 6 figure bananza pay day. Also had on Jokic winning MVP again before the playoffs started, like taking candy from a fool LolSsj16 wrote:web123888 wrote:Wise people would've put in their Nuggets series and conference winner bets as soon as they went down 2-0 and odds were spectacular. $$$$$$
I put money down when they were down 2-0 to win the finals with 15 to 1 odds. I hedged by betting Wolves to win the finals as well.
AleksandarN wrote:AleksandarN wrote:hardenASG13 wrote:
Weren't you the one who started a thread titled "Jokic isn't HIM" after last game? To be honest, he started really slow again last night, and poured it on after it became a blowout.
Yes because through the first two games of this series he wasn’t playing like him. I have no problems criticizing him when he is playing bad. I will praise when him when he plays great.
Hey HardenASG where you at bro?
Exp0sed wrote:UglyBugBall wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
What is this, are you seriously suggesting Murray isn't a top 30 player now? Come on man, be serious. He's top 20 at worst, with Jokic having multiple other top 40ish players. I'm not going to say the nuggets are the most stacked team in the NBA, but they for sure have one of the top 3 rosters in the NBA and Murray is the best closer in the game. Jokic is a great 40 minute player, but we've seen what he is without Murray for an entire season and now in these playoffs. He's good, but he's not ATG unless you're just Boxscore watching. Sometimes we say players are more than the sum of their parts, like a butler. But Jokic is less than the sum of his parts. The stats are deceiving.
OP, I can't believe ur actually doubling down on of the worst takes in RealGM history haha
fwiw, rs Murray is NOT a top 30 player, period but it'd be hard to argue he isn't a top 30 player in the playoffs, because he is. he's probably right around there tbh. the "closer" argument is absouletly ridicilous because a,) Jokic is a hell of a closer and he proved it over and over in both the rs and the playoffs and B.) Murray plays off Jokic and his immense gravity - put him on the Pistons and let him "close" see where that gets ya
Jokic is the defintion of being "more than the sum of his parts" (or stats), so much of what he does isn't captured in the boxscore, much more so than other superstars, even moreso than his gaudy all-around stats suggest, not to mention his numbers aren't capturing his leadership (on and off the court), his control of the game, directing traffic on both offense and defense. I mean some of it is captured by impact stats obviously but def not in raw stats
the "we've seen what he's like without Murray" is a ridicilous argument and disingenious at that - Jokic not only played that whole season without his #2, he also played with his #3 (MPJ). both happen to be max players, so there was a whole season of two max players sitting on the bench and Jokic carried Campazzo, Austin Rivers and Will Barton almost to 50 wins
the guys who were in the rotation that year (aside from AG) were basically out of the league the next season.
that's not the same as "playing without Murray" now, is it? lmfao
p.s, losing the first two games of this series with Murray going something like 3-18 from the field, isn't the same as "playing without Murray" either, it's playing with a huge net negative that is Murray (in those games), that's hardly the same thing
you doubling down on this stupidity is pure entertainment
hardenASG13 wrote:AleksandarN wrote:AleksandarN wrote:Yes because through the first two games of this series he wasn’t playing like him. I have no problems criticizing him when he is playing bad. I will praise when him when he plays great.
Hey HardenASG where you at bro?
Right here. Jokic was great last night, the first game this series I'd say that. I notice you didn't start any threads saying he's not him or anything either. Good for you! Or a thread saying Jokic needs more help, like you did when they lost 2 to the Suns last year. Because his supporting cast has been lights out the last two games. Because they probably have the best roster in the league outside of Boston. But no all star haha. Because we've seen that having a roster with a second all star at some point in their career makes a huge difference, rest of the starting 5 be damned!
I'm sure these two wins have been a huge sigh of relief for the Jokic GOAT people (not you, because you started a thread saying Jokic is not him a week ago, not me!) My whole argument is he's not the best player I've ever seen. Hes currently tied 2-2 vs a 3 seed, in a series where his team started with homecourt, and his opposition is in the second round for the first time as a group. He's played 1 extremely good game out of the 4. GOAT stuff!
lessthanjake wrote:hardenASG13 wrote:
Post as many words and numbers as you want. The 2007 cavs beat the pistons because they had Lebron James and Detroit didnt. His offense and his defense. That was extremely clear to anyone who watched the series.
Only for people who see a star player’s team win through great team defense and want to simplistically give that star the credit for that. It’s unfortunately a simplistic form of analysis that is very common, both in terms of fans and sports media. Doesn’t make it accurate.
Anyways, beyond the fact that, given the overall numbers, it’s abundantly clear that the 2007 Cavs beat the Pistons due to incredible team defense and that essentially anyone would tell you that that great team defense was really not about LeBron in particular, it’s worth noting that the Cavs did great in that series in the few minutes LeBron sat (+16 in 21 minutes), and that that was, unsurprisingly, on the back of incredible defense—with the Cavs holding the Pistons to an absurd 73.3 points per 100 possession with LeBron off the floor (including just a 32% effective FG%). Of course, that’s a tiny sample size, but there’s really essentially no reason to think that LeBron was driving the greatness of the Cavs defense, and we know that the great defense is what drove the team’s success. One really just has to *want* to credit LeBron to somehow conclude he carried the team. He didn’t. The defense did, and you can talk all you want about what was “extremely clear to anyone who watched the series,” but I think anyone who watched the series and didn’t see the Cavs team defense carrying the team was blind or hopelessly biased.
hardenASG13 wrote:AleksandarN wrote:AleksandarN wrote:Yes because through the first two games of this series he wasn’t playing like him. I have no problems criticizing him when he is playing bad. I will praise when him when he plays great.
Hey HardenASG where you at bro?
Right here. Jokic was great last night, the first game this series I'd say that. I notice you didn't start any threads saying he's not him or anything either. Good for you! Or a thread saying Jokic needs more help, like you did when they lost 2 to the Suns last year. Because his supporting cast has been lights out the last two games. Because they probably have the best roster in the league outside of Boston. But no all star haha. Because we've seen that having a roster with a second all star at some point in their career makes a huge difference, rest of the starting 5 be damned!
I'm sure these two wins have been a huge sigh of relief for the Jokic GOAT people (not you, because you started a thread saying Jokic is not him a week ago, not me!) My whole argument is he's not the best player I've ever seen. Hes currently tied 2-2 vs a 3 seed, in a series where his team started with homecourt, and his opposition is in the second round for the first time as a group. He's played 1 extremely good game out of the 4. GOAT stuff!
nikster wrote:hardenASG13 wrote:AleksandarN wrote:
Hey HardenASG where you at bro?
Right here. Jokic was great last night, the first game this series I'd say that. I notice you didn't start any threads saying he's not him or anything either. Good for you! Or a thread saying Jokic needs more help, like you did when they lost 2 to the Suns last year. Because his supporting cast has been lights out the last two games. Because they probably have the best roster in the league outside of Boston. But no all star haha. Because we've seen that having a roster with a second all star at some point in their career makes a huge difference, rest of the starting 5 be damned!
I'm sure these two wins have been a huge sigh of relief for the Jokic GOAT people (not you, because you started a thread saying Jokic is not him a week ago, not me!) My whole argument is he's not the best player I've ever seen. Hes currently tied 2-2 vs a 3 seed, in a series where his team started with homecourt, and his opposition is in the second round for the first time as a group. He's played 1 extremely good game out of the 4. GOAT stuff!
Yeah an efficient 24/14/9 with 3 steals, 3 blocks and +30 the previous game wasn't that good of a game
hardenASG13 wrote:lessthanjake wrote:hardenASG13 wrote:
Post as many words and numbers as you want. The 2007 cavs beat the pistons because they had Lebron James and Detroit didnt. His offense and his defense. That was extremely clear to anyone who watched the series.
Only for people who see a star player’s team win through great team defense and want to simplistically give that star the credit for that. It’s unfortunately a simplistic form of analysis that is very common, both in terms of fans and sports media. Doesn’t make it accurate.
Anyways, beyond the fact that, given the overall numbers, it’s abundantly clear that the 2007 Cavs beat the Pistons due to incredible team defense and that essentially anyone would tell you that that great team defense was really not about LeBron in particular, it’s worth noting that the Cavs did great in that series in the few minutes LeBron sat (+16 in 21 minutes), and that that was, unsurprisingly, on the back of incredible defense—with the Cavs holding the Pistons to an absurd 73.3 points per 100 possession with LeBron off the floor (including just a 32% effective FG%). Of course, that’s a tiny sample size, but there’s really essentially no reason to think that LeBron was driving the greatness of the Cavs defense, and we know that the great defense is what drove the team’s success. One really just has to *want* to credit LeBron to somehow conclude he carried the team. He didn’t. The defense did, and you can talk all you want about what was “extremely clear to anyone who watched the series,” but I think anyone who watched the series and didn’t see the Cavs team defense carrying the team was blind or hopelessly biased.
Lebron was their best defender. Do you know the details of those 21(!) Total minutes? Was it garbage time? Long stretches (no)? With alot of bench players in for Detroit, a limited offense to begin with?
Jokic was a plus 3 last night. So Denver won by 5 in the 9 minutes he was off the floor. That must mean Jokic wasn't their best player by your logic then, right?
nikster wrote:hardenASG13 wrote:AleksandarN wrote:
Hey HardenASG where you at bro?
Right here. Jokic was great last night, the first game this series I'd say that. I notice you didn't start any threads saying he's not him or anything either. Good for you! Or a thread saying Jokic needs more help, like you did when they lost 2 to the Suns last year. Because his supporting cast has been lights out the last two games. Because they probably have the best roster in the league outside of Boston. But no all star haha. Because we've seen that having a roster with a second all star at some point in their career makes a huge difference, rest of the starting 5 be damned!
I'm sure these two wins have been a huge sigh of relief for the Jokic GOAT people (not you, because you started a thread saying Jokic is not him a week ago, not me!) My whole argument is he's not the best player I've ever seen. Hes currently tied 2-2 vs a 3 seed, in a series where his team started with homecourt, and his opposition is in the second round for the first time as a group. He's played 1 extremely good game out of the 4. GOAT stuff!
Yeah an efficient 24/14/9 with 3 steals, 3 blocks and +30 the previous game wasn't that good of a game
hardenASG13 wrote:nikster wrote:hardenASG13 wrote:
Right here. Jokic was great last night, the first game this series I'd say that. I notice you didn't start any threads saying he's not him or anything either. Good for you! Or a thread saying Jokic needs more help, like you did when they lost 2 to the Suns last year. Because his supporting cast has been lights out the last two games. Because they probably have the best roster in the league outside of Boston. But no all star haha. Because we've seen that having a roster with a second all star at some point in their career makes a huge difference, rest of the starting 5 be damned!
I'm sure these two wins have been a huge sigh of relief for the Jokic GOAT people (not you, because you started a thread saying Jokic is not him a week ago, not me!) My whole argument is he's not the best player I've ever seen. Hes currently tied 2-2 vs a 3 seed, in a series where his team started with homecourt, and his opposition is in the second round for the first time as a group. He's played 1 extremely good game out of the 4. GOAT stuff!
Yeah an efficient 24/14/9 with 3 steals, 3 blocks and +30 the previous game wasn't that good of a game
Much of that was accumulated after the game was out of hand, on the back of a big first half from Murray and the supporting cast. He had 8 points at halftime. It was a good game, not amazing by any means. Last night was.
AleksandarN wrote:hardenASG13 wrote:nikster wrote:Yeah an efficient 24/14/9 with 3 steals, 3 blocks and +30 the previous game wasn't that good of a game
Much of that was accumulated after the game was out of hand, on the back of a big first half from Murray and the supporting cast. He had 8 points at halftime. It was a good game, not amazing by any means. Last night was.
He played great defense in the first half what are you talking about and in the 3rd quarter he helped to save off any run the Wolves had in the 3rd. Funny how you gloss over that. It’s like you don’t actually watch the game. Or if you do you can’t comprehend the complexity of the game. Or you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn’t fit your narrative
GrandTheftRondo wrote:eyeatoma wrote:UglyBugBall wrote:I've been saying this since his first mvp. He's an incredible system player, but he lacks competitive fire and toughness to be an ATG player. His MVP as a 6 seed will be locked at as THE worst mvp season in history. It'll make the Rose and Nash wins seem unanimous.
Jokic is a guy that needs a superstar like Murray to make his game work. He can't take over without that second punch on the perimeter the way other ATGs could. Now that Murray has been exposed, so has Jokic. What's funny is that those really watching told you this year's ago when he only got the sixth seed without him.
To me he is the third best player in the NBA - Luka and Embiid are comfortably ahead of him. Last year he took advantage of an injured field, and a weakened conference in a transition year. He had Murray playing like a superstar and to his credit got it done. But his awards don't match his greatness and in a few years everyone will come around to what I'm saying here right now.
100% agree, but social media will hate this take. Hold down the fort, because this is clear as day.
hardenASG13 wrote:AleksandarN wrote:hardenASG13 wrote:
Much of that was accumulated after the game was out of hand, on the back of a big first half from Murray and the supporting cast. He had 8 points at halftime. It was a good game, not amazing by any means. Last night was.
He played great defense in the first half what are you talking about and in the 3rd quarter he helped to save off any run the Wolves had in the 3rd. Funny how you gloss over that. It’s like you don’t actually watch the game. Or if you do you can’t comprehend the complexity of the game. Or you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn’t fit your narrative
My narrative? I'm sorry you've lost all ability to pile on when Jokic/Denver play well. You started a thread saying Jokic is not him less than a week ago. That's not acknowledging when a guy isn't playing well. That's turning on him once things go wrong. And you asked where I'm at lol!?
AleksandarN wrote:hardenASG13 wrote:AleksandarN wrote:He played great defense in the first half what are you talking about and in the 3rd quarter he helped to save off any run the Wolves had in the 3rd. Funny how you gloss over that. It’s like you don’t actually watch the game. Or if you do you can’t comprehend the complexity of the game. Or you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn’t fit your narrative
My narrative? I'm sorry you've lost all ability to pile on when Jokic/Denver play well. You started a thread saying Jokic is not him less than a week ago. That's not acknowledging when a guy isn't playing well. That's turning on him once things go wrong. And you asked where I'm at lol!?
Lol I call out Jokic when he doesn’t play up to his potential. Turning on him? Really bro. I don’t let any sense of loyalty to a player interfere with the reality of the situation. If I did I would be a fanboy. Maybe you have some weird sense of loyalty to players/team that prevents you from criticizing them that just shows the type of fan you are. But for me I keep it real
hardenASG13 wrote:AleksandarN wrote:hardenASG13 wrote:
My narrative? I'm sorry you've lost all ability to pile on when Jokic/Denver play well. You started a thread saying Jokic is not him less than a week ago. That's not acknowledging when a guy isn't playing well. That's turning on him once things go wrong. And you asked where I'm at lol!?
Lol I call out Jokic when he doesn’t play up to his potential. Turning on him? Really bro. I don’t let any sense of loyalty to a player interfere with the reality of the situation. If I did I would be a fanboy. Maybe you have some weird sense of loyalty to players/team that prevents you from criticizing them that just shows the type of fan you are. But for me I keep it real
Keeping it real isn't starting a thread titled Jokic is not him. Keeping it real would be commenting in the series thread that Jokic needed to play better after the first 2 games, which was obvious, or something. Keeping it real would be what I'm doing, coming on here and acknowledging he was amazing last night.
Again, you've lost the ability to pile on after melting down following game 2, bro. You cant start a thread like that then a week later pretend like nothing happened and you always believed in him haha.
