Garnett to the Suns?

[Vyse]

[ QUOTE ]
I dislike the idea of trading a star 24 year old PF for a 31 year old PF who's nearing the end of his prime.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I like the idea of putting all your eggs in one basket for a vastly superior player (at this point and for the next 1-2 years) who makes them the favorites to win the title, probably switching the advantage SA had over them.

[Artdogg]

[ QUOTE ]

It was just last year that DAL did to SA exactly what you're looking for.

[/ QUOTE ]

you obviously did NOT read my post

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dislike the idea of trading a star 24 year old PF for a 31 year old PF who's nearing the end of his prime.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I like the idea of putting all your eggs in one basket for a vastly superior player (at this point and for the next 1-2 years) who makes them the favorites to win the title, probably switching the advantage SA had over them.

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, what other way are the suns going to improve their chances of winning a title this much over the next 2-3 years? They should def do this. Garnett is markedly better.

[Artdogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is a dumb way to look at it. With the series 2-2 with both teams at full strength the Suns would be favorites in 2 games and dogs in 1 (by roughly the same odds.) The suspensions were enough to shift them from decent sized favorites in the series to decent sized dogs. Once the Spurs won game 5 game 6 became their game 7. How many teams win game 7 on the road after failing to close it out at home at full strength? I don't have to do a search to tell you it's not many. The only recent one I can think of is that Celtics-Nets series, and that's partly because those 2 teams are retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really???????? You didn't do a search, and I don't blame you. I just looked back to like '95 on the NBA.com historical page, which is a nightmare to navigate. Not many teams have done this, you are right. But the situation has only come up a very small number of times (can you say T-Mac?) over even that span:
[ QUOTE ]

95 Conference Semifinals

Indiana 4, New York 3
May 19: Fri., New York 92 at Indiana 82
May 21: Sun., Indiana 97 at New York 95


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

1997 Conference Semifinals

Miami 4, New York 3
May 16: Fri., Miami 95 at New York 90
May 18: Sun., New York 90 at Miami 101

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2001 Conference Semifinals

Milwaukee 4, Charlotte 3
May 17: Thu., Milwaukee 104 at Charlotte 97
May 20: Sun., Charlotte 95 at Milwaukee 104

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

First Round

Detroit 4, Orlando 3
May 2: Fri., Detroit 103 at Orlando 88
May 4: Sun., Orlando 93 at Detroit 108

[/ QUOTE ]

That's as far up as the historical site goes. Since then:

2005 1st round
IND over BOS
loses game 6, wins game 7 on road

2005 ECF
DET over MIA
DWade hurt, MIA loses 6 at home and 7 on road.

2006 1st round
PHX over LAL.
LAL lose 6 at home and 7 on road.

2006 ECSF
DET over CLE.
CLE loses 6 at home and 7 on road.

2006 WCSF
DAL over SAS
DAL loses 6 at home, wins 7 on road.


So that's 3-6 over that span. (I didn't see any qualifying NJ/BOS series, so not sure what you're talking about there...) Not great, but hardly dominating, especially considering sample size. Also, you can throw out the DET/MIA one, as DWade was injured (full-strength clause), completely changing the series, so 3-5. What you're left with is mostly home teams that had stunk it up against an inferior opponent to get in that spot in the first place (PHX vs LA last year, for ex.) getting their act together to win the series.

It was just last year that DAL did to SA exactly what you're looking for.

[ QUOTE ]

The only reason we are having this discussion is cause of your absurd comment "probably enough to bring them to the Spurs level" which implied that they are not at the Spurs level right now. It looks like you realized it was a dumb thing to say and are backing out of it, which is fine, but now you know where all this came from. Like tuq said, you should just be happy with the title and realize your team had some good fortune along the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

When I said NJ/BOS I meant Pacers/BOS, and that is the ONLY one that fits the criteria. Miami was in DET for game 6 and at home for game 7. Remember I said FAILED TO CLOSE OUT AT HOME IN GAME 6 THEN WENT ON THE ROAD AND WON. The Mavs were NOT at full strength in game 6 last year. You are good at remembering the Manu foul in game 7 but not the Terry suspension in game 6. The only one who's cherry picking is you.


Going into the series I knew the Suns would have little chance if they HAD to win 2/3 in SAN. I knew they'd have to steal one, but 2/3 is just too much to ask. It is a very difficult place to play, that's why you play all those games for homecourt, cause it DOES make a difference.

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
When I said NJ/BOS I meant Pacers/BOS, and that is the ONLY one that fits the criteria. Miami was in DET for game 6 and at home for game 7. Remember I said FAILED TO CLOSE OUT AT HOME IN GAME 6 THEN WENT ON THE ROAD AND WON. The Mavs were NOT at full strength in game 6 last year. You are good at remembering the Manu foul in game 7 but not the Terry suspension in game 6. The only one who's cherry picking is you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently I misread the DET/MIA one while slugging through NBA.com's terrible archives. I already threw that one out because of injury anyway, so not important.

What's your problem with the IND/NY one from '95?

I also suppose you're willing to throw away the PHX/LAL one because of Raja if you're going to drop the DAL/SAS one. (Dubious at best. Perhaps we should also exclude games that fell on even numbered days.)

So we're left with 2/6....a gigantic sample size. Out of 6 games, given the home team had the better regular season record (and therefore is likely better regardless) plus standard homecourt advantage factors, how many games would you expect the road team to win? How does this ridiculous exercise in selection bias change anything?

[ QUOTE ]


Going into the series I knew the Suns would have little chance if they HAD to win 2/3 in SAN. I knew they'd have to steal one, but 2/3 is just too much to ask. It is a very difficult place to play, that's why you play all those games for homecourt, cause it DOES make a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
Quantify please. A 100% guarantee difference?

[nycnyupoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I forgot to mention that you're cherry picking data. Game 6 happened. Both teams at full strength. (some might even say PHX had some players extra rested...oh, and SA was missing a big man from their rotation) Both teams trying to win. The Spurs won. They don't get 55% of a win for that. They get 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both teams weren't full strength.

Nash, at his age, played about 46 minutes, Marion played about 46 minutes, Barbosa had 40+ not used to playin that many minutes, Thomas played 35+ most def not used to playin that many minutes, Bell had 45+, list goes on to how many Suns players had to play extra minutes that night. And it was hard minutes, had it been a blowout (one way or another) then it would have been OK. But it was close to the end, just lost at the end, it drained them. No question about it.

I'm a Knicks fan, and I still say this, Suns got screwed out of the Championships.

Amare and Diaw got suspended for basic human instincts, getting up to see if someone they obviously cared about becuase it was their leader, was ok, nothing they could do.

[Vyse]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm a Knicks fan, and I still say this, Suns got screwed out of the Championships.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, people just want to have something to bitch about.

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I forgot to mention that you're cherry picking data. Game 6 happened. Both teams at full strength. (some might even say PHX had some players extra rested...oh, and SA was missing a big man from their rotation) Both teams trying to win. The Spurs won. They don't get 55% of a win for that. They get 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both teams weren't full strength.

Nash, at his age, played about 46 minutes, Marion played about 46 minutes, Barbosa had 40+ not used to playin that many minutes, Thomas played 35+ most def not used to playin that many minutes, Bell had 45+, list goes on to how many Suns players had to play extra minutes that night. And it was hard minutes, had it been a blowout (one way or another) then it would have been OK. But it was close to the end, just lost at the end, it drained them. No question about it.

I'm a Knicks fan, and I still say this, Suns got screwed out of the Championships.

Amare and Diaw got suspended for basic human instincts, getting up to see if someone they obviously cared about becuase it was their leader, was ok, nothing they could do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a work of art. Tuq, is this just your gimmick account messing with me? If so, bravo! I like how you made it a Knicks fan for deception. Nice try, but I see right through it.

[Artdogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I said NJ/BOS I meant Pacers/BOS, and that is the ONLY one that fits the criteria. Miami was in DET for game 6 and at home for game 7. Remember I said FAILED TO CLOSE OUT AT HOME IN GAME 6 THEN WENT ON THE ROAD AND WON. The Mavs were NOT at full strength in game 6 last year. You are good at remembering the Manu foul in game 7 but not the Terry suspension in game 6. The only one who's cherry picking is you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently I misread the DET/MIA one while slugging through NBA.com's terrible archives. I already threw that one out because of injury anyway, so not important.

What's your problem with the IND/NY one from '95?

I also suppose you're willing to throw away the PHX/LAL one because of Raja if you're going to drop the DAL/SAS one. (Dubious at best. Perhaps we should also exclude games that fell on even numbered days.)

So we're left with 2/6....a gigantic sample size. Out of 6 games, given the home team had the better regular season record (and therefore is likely better regardless) plus standard homecourt advantage factors, how many games would you expect the road team to win? How does this ridiculous exercise in selection bias change anything?

[ QUOTE ]


Going into the series I knew the Suns would have little chance if they HAD to win 2/3 in SAN. I knew they'd have to steal one, but 2/3 is just too much to ask. It is a very difficult place to play, that's why you play all those games for homecourt, cause it DOES make a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
Quantify please. A 100% guarantee difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my original post I said full strength, then you brought up the sas/dal series. I suppose we both don't know how to read, because you thought "full strength" means "not necessarily full strength," and I thought "Suns not on the same level as the Spurs" meant "Suns not on the same level as the Spurs." As for Indy/NY, the Pacers were the 2 seed so I thought they had homecourt, my bad. And I already explained that the Pacers/Celtics teams were retarded.

As for my quantification, if any of the Bulls teams played 100 playoff games against the Spurs ALL in SAN I think they would lose over 50%. Does that mean they are a worse team?

[Popinjay]

How many major injuries has KG had in his long career? Not one if I remember correctly. The guy is a genetic freak of nature, and all this nonsense about him not having a lot left is dumb.