NBA 2019-20 thread.

And the Knicks pull it out in OT!

 

The party’s over! Businesses can’t write off entertainment expenses under new tax law

 

Clippers beating Dallas 65-58 at the half.

Kawhi has 31.
Paul George has 23.

The other three starters combined for 0.

 

They're playing the Timberwolves - I imagine you're going by the colors, since they're wearing throwbacks tonight. But they're shooting 21-for-35 from the field, so, it's not like they're ball hogging or something. The Wolves are just inept at covering those two guys. (As plenty of teams are, I bet.) Wiggins is contributing his usual Empty 20 points, at least. The scary thing about the Clippers is that they do have plenty of role players who are solid.

 

You're right, just saw the opponent at a glance.

And yes, it's an absolutely solid lineup for the Clippers. They haven't been as good as the Lakers so far but they're still my pick for the title. (And they're now up 18 on the Wolves without Williams, Beverley or Shamet.)

 

Just don't follow the NBA much. So, anyone have the short version on why the Atlanta Hawks have been mediocre for so long?

 

Short answer - They haven't had a Top 10 player for a while now, and without that, it's really hard to advance in the playoffs, when defenses get tighter and teams adapt to one another.

Longer answer - From 2008-09 to 2016-17, they actually had a winning percentage at least .537, except one year. They made the playoffs 10 times, but only advanced to the conference finals once, and lost that despite their team being 60-22. However, they mostly piled up wins by being average to above-average at most lineup spots, and those incremental advantages tend to be less valuable in the playoffs because of how basketball works. (Meaning - If you have Michael Jordan, or LeBron James, or just the best player in a series, you can feed that guy over and over again.)

At the end of the 2016-17 season, their team was fairly old and getting expensive, so they tore things down. They're currently trying to build back up around Young... but the thing is, they did a draft day deal that revolved around them passing on Luka Doncic to get him. They acquired an extra pick in the process, but so far, Doncic looks like a future MVP if everything breaks right, whereas Young looks like "just" a future all-star.

 

Interesting. Thanks.

 

People in Portland always blame the city's small black population as the reason they can't recruit free agents - I always wondered what Atlanta's excuse was. And as much as people talk about LA offering show biz opportunities - the same could be said for Atlanta. Still - the biggest acquisition I can remember in The Human Highlight Film.

 

Location certainly doesn't hurt when it comes to free agency. But most of the major FA moves of the past 20 years have all had highly individual reasons besides location. LeBron? Went with Miami because he could play with two buddies, and then Cleveland to rehab his image and L.A. to continue to build his brand. Durant went to Golden State to win a championship, and then Brooklyn because it was a major city he could play with Kyrie in. Looking at the other players that have won MVPs in the past 10 years - Giannis hasn't hit FA; Harden, Curry and Westbrook were locked up with long-term deals by their respective teams ASAP; Rose got hurt. Second tier guys near or just at the max are the ones who leave, and half the time it seems like they end up as "buyer beward" deals.

 

Atlanta's excuse is they've always sucked. They've never won their conference and only won their division once in the past 25 years. No one wants to sign for a loser. That's why the Knicks aren't even a consideration for top free agents.

 

Also odd that the states that don't have state income tax aren't bigger draws. You hear about it with other sports - but not hoops (where they make the even bigger bucks).