LOL thank you, how could i ever forget harden losing to klay and dray led warriors!?....curry was out, we were playing at home , down 1-2 and draymond torched us with a barrage of 3 pointers...tsk tsk tsk harden had a lot of breaks
Not sure. But it's not as far fetched as you think. You have to consider that the replacement is Austin Rivers and Campazzo. So it's not just who you lose but also what you have to replace him. It doesn't help that they had to face one of the best backcourt combos in the league. MPJ needs one more season to be a reliable third wheel. Next year if they are healthy, they can be very good.
Campazzo and Rivers aren’t bad enough to where it’s a straight murder out there. And Jamal Murray isn’t good enough to where I’m comfortably saying he would make that dramatic of a difference.
campazzo is terrible. hes at best a limited role player off the bench. Rivers is pretty much the same way. His best role was off the bench with the rockets and even then he was up and down but that's what his ideal role is on a winning team. You thrust both those guys into your everyday starting lineup and that's your starting backcourt vs cp3/booker. Neither of those guys are capable of the guard play necessary at this point in the playoffs to give yourself a realistic shot at winning. Murray has shown time and time again how hes capable of simply taking over games by himself which opens up so much for Denver. Of course him being able to play with Jokic is a dramatic difference. Neither campazzo/rivers even come close to touching Murray as a player. Denver's 1-2 punch was dismantled, of course there's a big difference. Stop it
Starting backcourt of Camp and Rivers avg under 15 points 5 assists 4 rebounds and under 40% FG COMBINED! ( Campazzo shot 41% fg while Rivers shot 35% fg ) They played over 50 minutes each game. That's about as bad as u can get for a starting back court. Murray last year vs the Lakers avg 25 pts 7 assist 4 rebound on 51/31/87 shooting (63% TS) and that was his least effective series.
On top of all that, Murray would have forced Paul to exert himself more on offense and defense. The Suns were okay without Paul against the weakened Lakers, but he eventually helped to finish them off and the Nuggets with Murray are better than the Lakers. Suns probably still win, but not in 4.
Rivers shot on a 60 TS% and Campazzo shot ast like 56 TS%, not to mention they had Morris coming off the bench who shot like 57 TS%. They arent Murray, but they arent so bad that Murray back coming is the difference between winning a series and sweep. In the bubble. There is no evidence that Murray's play carries over.
He's not terrible though, impact metrics show him as a positive on the court. And Rivers isnt bad enough to where you can say he was hemorrhaging points out there. Not to mention Monte Morris played really well for the Nuggets as well. Murray isnt good enough to make a superstar difference, you are not going to convince me that Murray is the difference between a sweep and winning a series, you stop it. Also Murray is not even a top 20 player in this league.
yes he is. what series were you watching. both of those guys did next to nothing and negatives on the floor. and they're your starting backcourt playing one of the best teams in the league. i couldn't careless about convincing you. Just pointing out how dumb your take is talking about murray isn't much of a difference from camp/rivers. That's just dumb af. simple as that
I did watch. I watched Phoneix build a wall against Jokic and abuse him and Porter Jr relentlessly, Murray is not gonna change that either. He's also not a superstar player. You couldnt care less but you took the time out to quote me, you know what your problem is dude, you can never EVER keep it civil when you have a disagreement. But fine, no Murray is not a superstar player and I can easily name 20 players better than him and NO, he's not the difference between a sweep and winning a series, THAT IS DUMB.
yeah i quoted you to tell you how ridiculous you sound like I said. Now I can move on from your nonsense
The numbers I posted were for the series vs the SUNS, since I thought that was what you guys were talking about. Campazzo 57% TS and Rivers was 49%. TS. But more important than efficiency, their production was incredibly anemic. Perhaps Murray's play wouldn't match his bubble play, but even if you replace that with his regular season # 21 points 5 assists 4 reb on 59% TS they still represent an enormous upgrade from what Rivers and Campazzo combined provided. Morris would still be coming off the bench if Murray was playing and his production would subtract from Rivers/Campazzo minutes not Murray.
Their whole team was anemic. Their offensive rating for the series was 107. Phoenix posted a blisterering 124 offensive rating for the series. How is Murray fixing that? Jokic himself shot a 53 TS% and was picked on relentlessly on defense like Porter Jr. Murray would have that same problem defensively. Campazzo can at least defend. Singling out their back court like it was their main issue isnt really fair. If the efficiency of Jokic was so greatly reduced, what makes you think Murray's would carry over like that? What makes you think he would be consistent when consistency issues have been his main issue. And again I ask you, do you really believe Murray makes a difference between getting swept(losing each game in convincing fashion no less) and winning the series? The answer is for me is a definitie no. And I struggle to see any compelling argument telling me otherwise.
I don't know who would win if the Nuggets had a healthy Murray, Barton and Porter Jr. It's very possible the nuggets advance (or not) but more importantly I think the injuries greatly diminished their team beyond just the glaring visible statistical production. Losing Murray affects their spacing, it changes how much attention teams can put on Jokic. It limits the nuggets/jokic option to pass to. Losing one core piece or more will cause an affect on everything down the rotation. How big or small that affect can roughly be estimated by how important the piece was and how effective the replacement was. In this case, the difference in production and the effect on the team was huge. I'm a big believer in the synergy and fit of roster construction, so I tend to believe a loss of one cog (if not adequately replaced) will have tremendous negative affect on the whole, even if it isn't the biggest and best part.
The defense would not get any better(maybe worse) and Phoneix would be getting whatever they wanted still. Jokic and Porter would still be abused and Murray has never been a good defender. The 124 offensive rating says it all. Jokic and the team had been perfectly fine carrying on even after Murray went down. Obviously Murray changes things, but to be a difference between getting blown out swept and winning a series is NOT simply healthy Jamal Murray. Im sorry but Jokic scoring 53 TS% as a center is not simply just because Jamal Murray was not there. Sure, but Jamal Murray isnt good enough to make difference that you are thinking he does. He doesnt help defensively and there isnt any guarantee his offense carries over like it did from the bubble.
The "lovefest" narrative is just that -- a narrative to propagate. He still deserves credit for playing incredibly well at an age that only a handful of others can achieve (the list is basically LeBron and Michael). But narratives can change in an instant. I still see Los Angeles coming out of the West and unfortunately there could still be a chance that Paul encounters another injury at the worst possible time. Let's just clear up the narrative. Yes Harden and Fertitta forced Morey's hand, but the reality was it was a gamble that was worth taking because: The superstar needed to be appeased Paul couldn't stay healthy Paul's contract was seen as an albatross by everyone An injury-prone guy in his mid-30s was more likely to break down further rather than have a miraculous renaissance Again health mattered and Westbrook, while the opposite of an analytics darling, was seen as an iron man which was kind of the point: a hard-to-defend weapon that could play when the games mattered. The cruel part of the whole trade was Covid happened, allowing Paul extra rest and Westbrook -- who was, at least individually, playing the best basketball of his career before the stoppage -- encountered freak injuries to his quad. Again it's too easy to clown the Rockets for dumping Paul, but the trade was a clearly diminished, fading star (2019 Chris Paul) for a star still in his prime that wasn't necessarily better, but was seen as a desperation move to keep the window of contention open and keep the main star in Harden. Unfortunately it didn't work out. Capela got hurt which significantly changed the direction of the season, and Harden ended up being a drama queen.
1. The superstar player could have been convinced by the GM who was close with him. 2. He's stayed healthy these past two seasons when he switched to vegan. 3. They look stupid now and Westbrook's contract is like the second worst in the league. There were many of us here who did not want to trade for him. 4. That player still looked better than Westbrook any day of the week and Morey knew that. 5. Paul was healthier than Westbrook. Westbrook also had an extensive injury history himself. He also was a worse basketball player and fit you dont give up picks for. He has always been bad in the playoffs. Even without the injuries, though to your point, I would have liked to see what a fully healthy Russ could do. Its easy to do because it was a bad trade whom many of us(and certainly not Daryl Morey) did not want to do. Im sorry man, but this was not a good move. We should have listened to Daryl.
