2023-24 Running NBA thread

I mean, worth noting that "slowing down" for LeBron is averaging 25/8/7 at age 39. That's... insane.

And the bottom line is this: the Lakers have two great but aging players who are both healthy this year, with a decent supporting cast. The window is now... and as of today, the Lakers are a half-game from dropping out of the play-in tournament. Change is coming and it absolutely has to. One could try to make the argument that Darvin Ham isn't the problem, but he sure as hell isn't the solution. The Lakers either need to pull off a major trade in the next week or fire Ham... or both.

 

He needs to go for benching Vanderbilt, who was the unsung hero of last year's playoff run.

 

Totally agree that he has to go, if only to give the team a shot in the arm from a change they'll feel is very positive. They're done listening to him.

A better coach could maybe coax 10% more wins out of this group but they are not a *good* team. That they need a 39-year-old to give 25/8/7 to barely keep their heads above water is more than just coaching.

LeBron must be pissed that he still needs to shoulder so much of the load at this point. For the Lakers to be good, he has to play big minutes with high intensity on both ends of the floor. He's not doing that because it's nigh impossible for all but a select few IN THEIR PRIMES to do that. The things is, I doubt the non-AD guys on the roster care about that.

 

Embiid out with a meniscus issue. No bueno.

 

If Boston had half of the Heat's toughness, they'd be unstoppable.

 

Chuck called them "mentally weak."

 

I'm not a fan of the 65-game minimum for awards consideration; at the least, they should set up a panel of 3 independent doctors who can determine if a mult-game absence is legit and if so, not include those missed games in the 65 count. Does this mean I'm advocating for a 60-game player to be MVP? No, but I don't think a hammy late in the season should DQ someone just because they've balanced their workload previously.

 

I get the heebie-jeebies with the mere mention of "balancing their workload." They can balance their workload in the Riviera for a few months every year.

 

I can see both sides on it, but ultimately I'm cool with the 65-game minimum. That allows you to miss 17 games. Were you really the most valuable player in the league if you missed 18 or more games? I think that's a tough case to make.

 

I think most NBA writers who vote on awards have always taken games played into consideration. I think Silver's attempt here was more about the pending TV deal. It's hard to convince the worth of forking over billions if TNT/ESPN/ABC/Steaming is wondering, well, will STAR PLAYER be playing for our broadcast tonight?

And, hell, by extension, fans. Look, the Hornets will never be good. But they're the closest I have for NBA games. I was fortunate to see Jokic play when I went this year. My buddy, though, got to see Wemby in street clothes. Anything that helps fans see stars is worth trying something. I don't think the minimum is perfect, but it's a start. And damn, the union agreed to it. So they can't bitch.