James Harden does not have the heart of a champion.

No they aren't, but a player in his 4th year will usually be better than he was in his 2nd year. That's why its a bad comparison. Murray's floor is higher because he's in his 4th year.

Michael Porter Jr. hurts your argument. His minutes are getting cut because he's making mistakes out there.

They are. You just aren't seeing it. And SGA was their 2nd best player in the series. As inconsistent as he was, Schroder was worse.

Dort's inexperience allowed us to win. When Harden blocked Dort's 3pt attempt, Dort should never have shot it. Instead, he should've pump faked, gotten Harden in the air, jumped into him, and then shot 3 free throws.

You realize we have perhaps the most predictable offense in the league, right?

Watch the games. In game 5, we absolutely bullied the hell out of SGA's defense.

SGA did exactly what was expected of him? So you're saying that OKC expected their regular season leading scorer to score <=10 pts three times in a seven games series? Get real.

That's a pathetic cop-out. He could have an empty stat-line and 5 turnovers, and as long as OKC wins, then he played "good enough to win".

Absolutely pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself. Intellectual dishonesty at it's worst.

Gallinari had 3 terrible games. That's a fact. Games 4, 5, and 7. He good in games 1/6 and average in games 2/3.

It's funny that you're now describing him as a 4th option role player. This whole argument started because someone (not sure if it was you) was trying to exaggerate how good OKC was and described Gallinari as a "capable scorer" which I disagreed with.

In 2018, we went 3-1 against GS in the regular season. One of those wins was without Curry. One of those wins was without Harden. And one of those wins went into overtime. When we lost, we lost by 2 points, and GSW didn't have Durant. This regular season series isn't relevant to the postseason because too many key players were missing.

Now look at the regular season series between the 2013 Heat/Nets. Of the 4 games, 3 of them were decided by 1 point. The remaining game? Double overtime. This agrees with my assertion. Thanks.

I didn't say that. I said that Vegas favored the Nuggets to win the series. Reading comprehension, please.

"Denver is favored at -278 in its first-round series and commands a staggering 97 percent of the handle with 81 percent of the total bets.

The Jazz (+220) have been exposed in the bubble without sharpshooter Bojan Bogdanovic and will be missing Mike Conley for the beginning of their matchup with the Nuggets."

https://dknation.draftkings.com/202...-predictions-odds-betting-splits-nba-playoffs

 

2020 playoffs

Leonard
32.3 points
65.7 TS%
+11.3 net rating

Harden
29.7 points
61.8 TS%
+11.5 net rating

Harden in this postseason IS doing what Kawhi is doing and he’s being crucified and questioned for it.

 

Again.... narratives and it also just looks more aesthetically pleasing... You can post all the advanced stats you want, but no one outside of the rocket's bubble is taking Leonard over Harden in the playoffs.

Harden has earned his game 7 stigma. I don't think the playoff Harden narrative is fair, but it is what it is. Jacking up step backs and running into a wall of defenders are his go to offensive moves.

 

Dallas and Denver are also pretty bad defensively

 

This is an actual straw man, I'm not saying that SGA is gonna be better than Murray merely that playoff inexperience isnt gong to give the opponent some huge advantage. That's literally alll you have talked about. SGA and nothing else like his playoff experience was gonna make or break the Thunder when he was actually the third best player and filled his role adequately. Jamal Murray was expected to be the second best player going directly into the playoffs with few games behind him and greatly outperformed. Your arguments do not hold water, use nuance dude.

He's making mistakes and yet still seeing the floor because of his offensive talent. This is my point, Im not saying playoff experience doesnt help but Michael Porter Jr making mistakes is not making or breaking the series for Denver in either the Utah series nor the Clippers series.

Nope, you are wrong Schroder had the highest net rating for OKC. Chris Paul was their second best player. And then Shai. Data does not back up what you are saying at all. Chris Paul was actually expected to be their best player though...(he may have been..net rating might not totally reflect that).

Are you really using a single play to show someone's inexperience. Like...you can be as expereinced as you want to be, in tight situations people make mistake no matter what. What a terrible terrible example. Especially for a guy who scored 30 points that game and played amazing defense all series lol.

Do you use stats...like at all? Our offensive rating was 9th this season. OKC had a 6th rated defense this season. With Harden on the floor our offensive rating is 117 which is good for number one all time. And our offense this series wasnt good....but it was really when Harden was on the bench that things got bad. Sheesh.

We bullied the hell out of a lot of their players one on one. Shcroder got bullied vs Harden, Gallo got bullied vs whoever etc. SGA didnt play great defense but their team defense as a whole was adeqaute enough that is stifled our offense(of cousrse a lot of it had to do with Dort tbh).

Lol, again you keep using leading scorer like it means he's the best player on the team when its clear that he was not. Schroder and esepcially Chris Paul have better impact metrics than him. LOL go even look, SGA averaged 19.1 PPG and Schroder averaged 18.9...oh the horror lol. AND Schroder did it more efficiently than SGA too. Man just stop with this, it gets easier the more this goes on.

Yea because he is a 4th OPTION PLAYER. I dont expect him to be amazing for 7 games. Like LOL what else do you want? And now you are name calling...real mature sheesh.

It's not intellectually dishonest, you just hate using nuance. Dude is a 4th option, he's not gonna have it some nights, yea 9 points for a 4th option...is fine, they won.

No, at worse...he had 4 good games and 3 mid- bad ones. At WORST, which means the majority of the time he was playing well. In game 2 which you call average, he had the second highest plus minus on the team and shot the ball on good efficiency. In game three he scored 20 points on even better efficiency. You really dont know what you are talking about lol. Lemme explain for you player's are going to have peak's and valley's in a series, that's why we have cumulative data to give a better picture on how he performed holistically. If you dont get that, I can't help you.

Bro...he averaged 17 points a game for the playoffs on 57 TS% that is the definition of a capable scorer for a 4th option....like Shai averaged 19 a game in the regular season and Gallinari averaged 18....so what the hell is your argument here?

One of those wins was without Harden and Golden state had a full roster. Another one of those wins was without Gordon and Paul and GS didnt have cousins(who they didnt have in the post season). Then they beat us by a few points in the regular season. LOL, oh so us beating them twice(once without our second and third best player and the other without Harden) while they had a full roster isnt relevant?? Hmmmm....sounds like you are picking and choosing what fits here but is also sounds like REGULAR SEASON MATCH UPS DONT MATTER.

LOL look at what you are arguing, Miami swept them, in dominant fashion. https://www.basketball-reference.co...stern-conference-semifinals-nets-vs-heat.html. Only one game was close. If your points actually meant anything than they would not have swept. They didnt even keep it close most games, they got blown them out in most games.

Lol look at who draft kings is even describing that. If you think they thought Utah would blow a 3-1 lead for Denver to come back and win by two points was gonna happen than I dont know what to tell you. Denver's defense is bad...very bad.

 

I expect no one to take Harden over Kawhi.

I expect more honest analysis of what happened on the court. I expect an understanding that at times play making, defense and the defense opposing teams throw at you individually can go a long way towards helping your team to out score your opponent. Not just bucket making.

The results in THESE playoffs....Harden and Kawhi have both scored at high volume, with excellent efficiency and their teams have kicked ass when they are on the floor.

The discussion doesn’t reflect that reality.

 

Also what is lost here is that Kawhi is going against...really bad defensive teams. Both Dallas and Denver are awful at defense.

 

If you believe Siakam was more important than Lowry for Toronto last night, I don't know what else I can say.

Single game +/- is NOT advance stat. Large sample size +/- is. Let me say this again. +/- in one game has a lot to do with who else were playing on the floor, and how they performed during the stretches the said player was there.

For example, if the opponent happened to shoot lights out when you are on the floor while they missed all open shots while you sat, you'd look terrible with the +/- number even though you might have played very well on both ends, and vice versa.

 

I have complete understanding of the stats.

And I would agree with your last point when you talk about role players who mostly just catch and shoot. They can wildly fluctuate just based on who is out there with them.

But Harden led the team in time of possession in game 7. 8.1 minutes with the ball in his hands. He had the ball. He was making the decisions. He was making the plays. He is who the defense was focusing on. And while he was doing that we were winning. And when he sat we were losing. As evidenced by his net rating in the series, the game and the 4th quarter of game 7.

 

Fair enough.

 

Harden doesn't have the heart of a champion because he has yet to be a champion (win a championship). I think he has the heart to become a champion.

 

It's not a strawman at all. You brought up the Jamal Murray comparison without considering that he's a 4th year player. Do you understand the trajectory of most NBA careers?

And SGA didn't fill his role adequately. Why don't you ask OKC fans if they were happy with his performance?

Again, his minutes are being cut because he's making mistakes. In game 7 between Denver/Utah, he played 17 minutes. You may not think that Porter's mistakes impacted the Denver/Utah series, but Mike Malone certainly does.

It does if you stop aggregating the data and look at it on a game-by-game basis.

You said inexperience doesn't make or break the series for us. I gave you an example where it did.

The way you framed the question ("make or break") requires specific examples.

So now you're incredulous because I gave you exactly what you asked for? Makes sense.

Do you watch the games.....like at all? Do you agree that our offense is extremely predictable?

In game 5, our game plan was to target SGA specifically. We game planned to take advantage of his defensive shortcomings. So contrary to what you stated, his defensive shortcomings clearly did hamper them.

Why are you arguing against this obvious fact?

I use "leading scorer" to mean "leading scorer". You're the one who reads it as "best player". Use some reading comprehension.

Do you think OKC fans are satisfied with Gallinari's performance?

If you take offense to being called "intellectually dishonest", then I suggest you stop making intellectually dishonest arguments. There's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

"Played good enough for OKC to win" is ABSOLUTELY an intellectually dishonest statement. Like I said before, he could have an empty stat line and 10 turnovers, but if OKC wins, then "he played good enough for OKC to win."

Intellectually dishonesty at it's worst.

Wrong again. Games aren't either good or bad. They can also be average. Look at his shooting percentages in games 2/3. An "average" 3pt% is around 35%, right? So how can his performance in games 2/3 be considered anything better than average?

And don't sugar-coat his bad games. They weren't "mid-bad". They were bad, and some were downright awful.

Good efficiency? Really? He shot 41.7% from the field, 33.3% from 3, and perfect from the foul line.

You need to raise your standards.

33.4% from the field, 36.4% from 3, and perfect from the foul line. It's not bad, but it certainly isn't good. It's average.

That's fine if we're talking about a large sample size. But for a 7 game series, it's misleading because a single stellar (or terrible) game skews the results and gives an incorrect impression.

For instance, let's say that we have a 7 game series. In game 1, Harden scores 65 points. In games 2-7, he scores 15 in each of them. The statement "Harden averaged 22ppg" is a factually correct statement, but it distorts what really happened in the series.

I'll make you a tipjar wager. Let's find OKC's fan site and ask them if they felt Gallinari proved himself to be a capable scorer in the series. Does $50 sound fair?

Regular season matchups don't matter when the teams are missing key pieces.

Yes, I'm arguing that Brooklyn shouldn't have automatically been considered the favorites just because they swept Miami in the regular season since all the games were extremely close. And Miami beat them in the playoffs. Sounds like my argument is correct.

Again, I'm talking about who was favored before the series started. And the article is very clear on that.

Is this like SGA where I wrote "regular season leading scorer" and you interpreted that as "best player"?

 

Why? Because you can use advanced stats to create your own narrative? We certainly haven't kicked ass against OKC in the 4th quarter with excellent efficiency.

Harden has a stimga for a reason and sometimes you just need to get out of the bubble to see it.

 

Regarding SGA's inexperience, I also wanted to point out that in game 7, down by 2 with 1 second left, SGA tried to inbound the ball to Steven Adams......at the 3pt line.....with his back to the basket.

But please, tell me more about how inexperience doesn't matter.

 

What narrative?

I’m not making up the numbers.

Im merely reporting the results and how they don’t add up to how people are discussing it.

4th quarter numbers in the first round against OKC

Harden
7 games
Net rating +6.1
True shooting : 60.3%. <——- very good
4.33 AST/TO

Westbrook
3 games
Net rating -35.5
True shooting : 19.4%
1.5 AST/TO

womp womp....

 

Harden does these same things every game. Sometimes we win. Sometimes we lose. A lot depends on how well the role players shoot. But when Harden is being aggressive scoring and does it well, we usually win. That's what he didn't do in the last game.

The one piece of statistical evidence you cite to absolve his criticism is one of the most unreliable stats for a single game. There are plenty of counter examples that show how unreliable it is, not just for role players but for star players. I cited the most recent one of Toronto and you even believe the obvious deviation is the reality. I could bring up many other examples like that.

At the end of the day, there is no convincing stat that counter the criticism. I admit that the criticism of his "heart" also has no objective evidence than the eye test of those who observe how he carried himself on the floor while he was struggling to hit shots. So you can dismiss my take just as easily as I can dismiss yours.

On record, I am not a Harden hater. I just think that a lot of Harden apologists refuse to acknowledge some of Harden's shortcomings in some of the most important games in the playoffs and label any criticism as "hating." I actually wouldn't mind being called a Westbrook hater. If I appreciate Westbrook more Harden in a game, that says a lot.

 

I don’t believe I have called you a hater.

I also don’t see me trying provide any evidence trying to “explain away” some of his truly terrible playoff showings.

Harden was -36.2 net rating in the 2-11 **** show against the Spurs. -4.3 in the 2/11 13 turnover collapse against GS. -30.8 in the Clippers comeback as he watched from the bench. Those were bad. Really bad.

There were times in his playoff career where when he didn’t show up in the scoring column there was no chance he could be a positive impact. I don’t believe that to be the case anymore.

Just trying to point out how it’s possible(and it happened in this case) for any player to have a huge impact on winning even when he himself is not scoring the ball even if that guy is known primarily as a scorer.

 

I'm talking about how much being inexperienced actually affects your playoff performance. Which in this case didnt happen. The both either over performed their expectations or stayed at them. But even so...THEY BOTH HAVE PLAYOFF EXPERIENCE. And they both have the same amount of it. Murray is just a better player than SGA with much higher expectations. Also....he really just got hot for a playoff series, you see him coming back to Earth against the Clippers.

He did though? He averaged 3 points less per game on actual better efficiency in a 7 game series while being the third best player on his team. Accept the numbers, stop using narratives to confirm your biases. And we are a damn good defense that is a especially a bad match up for OKC offensively. He played well.

In game 5 he played 34 minutes in game 6 he played 28 minutes. Both elimination games where he got time. Check out his stat line in game 5 he was great. In game 6 he played really poorly offensively and still got 28 minutes. But again, Porter Jr is not what made that series for Denver, it was Jokic and Murray who are better players who will shoulder the load. Micahel Malone cut his minutes in an important game 7 and then raised his minutes vs the Clippers at 23 minutes. Lots of coaches would tighten up their rotation in a game 7. So yea, his offensive prowess is what is keeping Porter on the floor. He's inexperienced but that's not stopping him from still getting playing time in the playoffs as a rookie but he's not what's gonna win or lose them a series.

Sigh...dude, if you look at the regular season data and then our series data, you will see Shai was their third best player. Cp3 was far and away their best player overall and Schroder was their best player this series. How does your eye test not see that Schroder was actually killing us all series. He was providing the best offense for OKC cause no one our side could cover him. What about that is not getting through your head. The eye test shows schroder was better and so do the stats.... Why do you deny the facts?

What? Your example is terrible because that could literally happen to anyone. It was a pressure moment in a game 7, thats gonna get to most player's no matter how much experience they have. Its a terrible example. He scored 30 that game while playing amazing defense while being an un drafted rookie....sheesh.

Yea...I do, do you ever use numbers? A lot of the times, even if you know whats coming, they still cant stop it. Our offense has been extremely predictable for years....and yet we still have great offensive efficiency stats and have better offensive efficiency stats against the better defensive teams than most others. Again no numbers to back up your assertions.

Yea Shai couldnt guard Harden and Westbrook. But no one their side could guard Harden except Dort, and they ran a zone scheme every time Harden was on the perimeter. OKC's team defense was good. Just because SGA's individual one on one offense wasnt that good, his team defense clearly didn't hamper them as OKC's defensive efficiency was good this series. In fact they were better than the Clippers. So....again, you are just using your bias to confirm your narrative, while not refuting my point.

You use "leading scorer" like it means something though? It doesnt when he's not far and away the leading scorer on his team nor is he the most important. He is what I said he is, the third best player, who played to his expectations.

Idk? Some are, some arent. That answer would probably change depending on if they won or lost this series? The fact is that stats shows he performed like he has in the regular season. An OKC fan wont tell you that Gallo is the reason the lost this series...they literally almost won it.

I'm not though, you are calling my arguments pathetic while not refuting them.

He's a 4th option player...not every night is gonna be an amazing night. What you arent getting is that they still won that game? Was it bad for him yea, but they still won. A 4th option isnt gonna be consistent every game in a series(or at least those expectations shouldn't be there) He played three games before that and was very good. But you are complaining about a game in which they won but he had a bad game? He's still a threat to the defense. How he played in games 1-3 is gonna influence the defense in games going forward. Like I said it's not intellectually dishonest IF YOU USE NUANCE OH MY GOD.

He had 17 points on 58 TS%. That is good overall efficiency. Sheesh That is a good game. He played to his regular season averages. That's not a bad game. In game 3 he had 20 points on 64 TS%. Thats even better than his regular season averages. That is also a really good game. You need to learn how to evaluate efficiency.

I'm not sugar coating anything, you just arent evaluating them properly.

It is good? Are FTs imaginary points? Look at his overall efficiency, drawing fouls is a good thing, not a bad thing. It's not average when he is over performing his regular season numbers on better efficiency.

 

Name 1 person who is excusing his overall performance?

 

But we went through his performances game by game? And you saw that at best he had 3 dud performances(one of which they won) and 4 pretty dman good performances.

Like what would you call that? You look at the cumulative stats to show how he performed overall because a 7 game series can absolutely be peaks and valleys. His overall efficiency for this series was what you would expect from him, 15 PPG on 57 TS%. He scored 3 less points per game than his regular season offense. Against our defense which was pretty damn good. I dont know what else to say here. Cumulative data will give you an overall picture of the peaks and valley's of this series.

I dont do tipjar bets man. Some will tell you they though Gallo played fine, some will tell you otherwise. It doesnt mean they are looking at the data either. They can be wrong as well.

What? We were the ones missing key pieces not them? That goes in our favor, not the Warriors. And yet we still lost. Either way it doesnt matter cause regular season match ups don't really matter. You'll find a lot of examples where good teams lose to teams in the regular season only to stomp on them in the playoffs.

No, if your argument was actually correct than this series should have been more than 4 games and none of them should have been blow outs.

The article said Utah was exposed...without their best shooter, do you really think Draft Kings thought this would go seven games with Denver barely winning? Utah should have won this series. Denver was lucky to move on. I'm just adding nuance to the conversation.