What's new
By:

Clipps-Nuggz Gm 7 Discussion

NAOS said:
How many times has Doc Rivers lost a series after a 3-1 lead? Is it 3 times now? More?
Click to expand...
More. I saw an article on this. It's like 3 or 4 he has blown a 3-1 lead and another 3 or 4 blown a 3-2 lead.

He is probably the worst coach to have won a ring.
 
LogGrad98 said:
This. I was shocked kawhi didn't stay there. I mean I'm sure he prefers the glitz and glamor of LA over Toronto, but they had a very good chance of repeating if he had stayed. He could have strung 2 or 3 rings together.
Click to expand...
It’s home he cares about... not the glitz and glamour... he’s also not a fan of the cold.
 
JazzyFresh said:
No. He wouldn't even have one ring if not blessed with facing a decimated Warriors team.
Click to expand...
I mean he got one in San Antonio against LeBron so he’d at least still have one.
 
LogGrad98 said:
More. I saw an article on this. It's like 3 or 4 he has blown a 3-1 lead and another 3 or 4 blown a 3-2 lead.

He is probably the worst coach to have won a ring.
Click to expand...
then some guy here would tell you its statically insignificant just like mike conley's career 0-4 G7 record
 
jom2003 said:
then some guy here would tell you its statically insignificant just like mike conley's career 0-4 G7 record
Click to expand...

I suppose you could learn to be more number literate, or you could complain when someone corrects you on numeric literacy.

I don't know that it's possible to realistically model the results of a 3-1 series, but I doubt its anything approximating 50-50.
 
One Brow said:
I suppose you could learn to be more number literate, or you could complain when someone corrects you on numeric literacy.

I don't know that it's possible to realistically model the results of a 3-1 series, but I doubt its anything approximating 50-50.
Click to expand...
the chance of going 0-4 on G7s is not 50-50 either. it's 0.5*0.5*05.*05=6.25%
 
One Brow said:
Exactly, and that's not significant enough to draw a conclusion on Conley's play in those games. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Click to expand...
Well except i did show you exactly how Conley's played in those games. He shot 19/59 and **** his pants.
 
LogGrad98 said:
More. I saw an article on this. It's like 3 or 4 he has blown a 3-1 lead and another 3 or 4 blown a 3-2 lead.

He is probably the worst coach to have won a ring.
Click to expand...
Totally agreed.
The "2008 Celtic" were reeeeally good and I'm pretty sure they could have won the ring even with no coach at all.
After that experience Doc has gone from a failure to another one (ok perhaps sometimes with CP3 and Griffin he was a bit unlucky, but this year has no excuses with injuries).

Ahn BTW; an advise for "Playoff P" alias PG13: next time, choose your nickname after proving something.
 
jom2003 said:
Well except i did show you exactly how Conley's played in those games. He shot 19/59 and **** his pants.
Click to expand...

Going 19/59 is also statistically insignificant. It's not enough shots.

You can make a fair argument that Conley shoots worse in the playoffs than the regular season. This focus on game 7, and using it as evidence of a larger pattern, is silly.
 
At least we didn't put up that piss poor game in our game 7. Clips gonna Clip.
 
good news is I don't think Nuggets will be able to keep all their guys this offseason... I think Grant, Craig, and Millsap have all increased their value a bit and Nuggets are not a team that pays the tax... owners have cheaped out historically. I could see a team like Atlanta or NY getting wild with a Grant contract.
 
One Brow said:
Going 19/59 is also statistically insignificant. It's not enough shots.

You can make a fair argument that Conley shoots worse in the playoffs than the regular season. This focus on game 7, and using it as evidence of a larger pattern, is silly.
Click to expand...
Don't even try. Jom is the worst. He can only see his point of view, even when proven wrong. He doesn't grasp the concept of sample size and uses silly stats to back up his claims. And then, he has the nerve to ridicule others when shown how dumb his takes are (it seems no one is smart enough to follow this train of thought, if you can call it that way).
 
latin jazz said:
Don't even try. Jom is the worst. He can only see his point of view, even when proven wrong. He doesn't grasp the concept of sample size and uses silly stats to back up his claims. And then, he has the nerve to ridicule others when shown how dumb his takes are (it seems no one is smart enough to follow this train of thought, if you can call it that way).
Click to expand...

In his defense, if LeBron was 0-4 in Game 7's, what would the narrative be? I think that's his main point although it's not all Conley's fault that he's 0-4 in Game 7's.
 
LoPo said:
In his defense, if LeBron was 0-4 in Game 7's, what would the narrative be? I think that's his main point although it's not all Conley's fault that he's 0-4 in Game 7's.
Click to expand...
I mean, Lebron is arguably the second best player of all time so the bar is higher (even then, he's been criticized for losing so many times in the Finals, although his teams were crap).

Conley is just a solid starter, all star caliber in his prime. Those Memphis teams were overachievers. Their best postseason run had the offense run through Zach Randolph. Furthermore, 4 games is not enough to judge invididual perfomance or legacy. You can also make the argument that taking a vastly superior team like OKC to a game 7 was an accomplishment by itself. Finally, his numbers in the playoffs are pretty good: not only this season (when he averaged 20ppg, 6.6 apg on good shooting) but in the past as well.
 
Troat Guru said:
Totally agreed.
The "2008 Celtic" were reeeeally good and I'm pretty sure they could have won the ring even with no coach at all.
After that experience Doc has gone from a failure to another one (ok perhaps sometimes with CP3 and Griffin he was a bit unlucky, but this year has no excuses with injuries).

Ahn BTW; an advise for "Playoff P" alias PG13: next time, choose your nickname after proving something.
Click to expand...

It was hilarious when during the first round Mark Jackson was praising PG and went as far as to say:"not enough people recognise the greatness of Paul George". Well true greatness shines in those moments..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top