22 Comments
User's avatar
cpt nemo's avatar
2dEdited

so its official:

https://bsky.app/profile/theathletic.com/post/3mbuwvmm3i22x

BREAKING NEWS: The Washington Wizards have agreed to trade for Trae Young, sending CJ McCollum and Corey Kispert to the Atlanta Hawks, sources tell The Athletic's David Aldridge and

@joshrobbins.bsky.social

.

Expand full comment
NoOneEverGotFired4GuardinSteph's avatar

FYI this is discussed in the newer thread

Expand full comment
cpt nemo's avatar

darn - i thought I was posting in the newer thread - my bad!!

Expand full comment
cpt nemo's avatar

If they can do it, so can we !! Cmon MDJ make something good happen!

Expand full comment
cpt nemo's avatar

Nuggets still pretty good without Jokic - about to beat #2 team in East - Boston - though East is definitely weaker than the west. Boston is #2 with 23-12 while Denver is #4 at 24-12 (record before this game ends)

Expand full comment
NoOneEverGotFired4GuardinSteph's avatar

Also have to account for the Boston record getting to fatten up on the weaker East teams while Denver has that many wins against the tougher West

Expand full comment
Asher B.'s avatar

In case you missed it, we had a long discussion in the postgame thread as to whether there is scientific evidence regarding whether a coach getting techs helps or hurts the team. There is a study, in fact, but what it concludes doesn't really help guide decision making all that much. It shows that in the games the studied, if a coach was at home and ahead in the fourth quarter and got a tech, that increased the performance of the team relative to expectations. That's not nothing, but it's correlative not causative, meaning there's no proving that it was the techs that got the team going. Still, interesting. But if you ask the question as a coach, "Here I am, it's the fourth quarter, I'm in a calm mood, should I get a tech or not, to help the team?" then the study does not serve as support for doing so, nor for not doing so. Much less if you are not ahead and on the road, as was the case against the Clips.

This conclusion is to my mind in contrast with the folk wisdom that a coach getting techs always fires the guys up and they play "for him" and such. The conclusions do not support that.

My own non-scientific but I hope reasonable thought is that a technical foul -- a point granted to the other team -- is a really poor choice and if possible should be avoided by players and coaches alike. Seems logical. Is that typically offset by better play following a tech? Maybe your eye test says yes, mine does not; but the science doesn't offer much support for any argument.

Expand full comment
Loonatic's avatar

Piling on to the praise bandwagon: this was a delightful read, a flower grown out of the manure of that game. Thanks Duncan!

Expand full comment
Run_TMC's avatar

Yeah! Best expression of the frustration with that game I have seen!

Expand full comment
Truckeeman's avatar

Great writing.

I'm still mad at the 4th quarter pass interference call against the Niners in the NFC Finals against Washington in 1984. Maturity be damned.

Expand full comment
Alan Greenberg's avatar

Yes I agree the W's lost 4 points in the mistaken goal tending call along with the 2 technical free throws. But just give me back the 2 free throws and the W's win the game. No technical is worth giving up points. It is like saying to the opponent....Here take a few free throws on me; no problem.

I will give you the 6-7 points argument, but there is never a good excuse with the full complement of players available to play an NBA game, score less than 110 points, and feel that you deserve to win the game.

Expand full comment
Goofus's avatar

Didn’t they only go 1-for-2 on the techs?

Expand full comment
Asher B.'s avatar

Yes, but we could have certainly used that point.

Expand full comment
DFiB's avatar

We played awesome defense too. Clippers hit hella tough shots. Can’t just look at one facet of the game and say that’s a reason we didn’t play well enough to win.

Expand full comment
AttilaTheHun's avatar

Exactly. For similar reasons, I don't agree with Duncan's statement that if we run back the game 100 times, we win 90% of the time. That game was up for grabs. The Clips won the 1st and 3rd quarter, we won the 2nd and 4th. Play it back 100 times, and I think our odds are 50-50.

Expand full comment
Duncan's avatar

Fair enough, those percentages are some sour grapes talking. I do really think between the missed open threes and the reffing disaster, the Warriors played the better game in terms of what they could control. But you can’t control everything!

Expand full comment
AttilaTheHun's avatar

I hear you. But if you miss your shots did you really play a good game? I don't buy into "we got good looks, the shots just didn't fall." No, we got good looks and shot like crap. That's not good basketball.

Expand full comment
JZAlvarado's avatar

If the cost of Herb and Trey are two unprotected first round picks id offer that 26 and 28 hoping Steph is still around to make us semi competitive.

Expand full comment
AJ's avatar

I mean Trey for a first is a no brainer imo

Expand full comment
cpt nemo's avatar
2dEdited

Not sure if anyone would have stopped me If I was in Coach Kerr’s boots last night!!! Still hurts the next day!

Expand full comment
fzwinter's avatar
2dEdited

Sad to watch the continuing demise of Klay Thompson. In addition to making only 42.4% of his two-point attempts and 35.3% of his threes, he's shooting 68% from the free throw line this year (17/25) although he's a career 85.7% free throw shooter. He's missed more FTs this year (8) in 25 attempts than he missed (7) in 74 attempts all last year. To put things in perspective, Steph has missed 11/157.

Expand full comment
PGBreaker's avatar

Sad, yes, but reinforces the Warriors made the right decision.

Expand full comment