2017-18 NBA season

[creekster]

agree with Santos, but you are right here - the rule says you can review it. bad rule. the problem is that it wasn't conclusive. and to your point about Javie just saying that to support the refs, he maintained it was a charge 30 minutes after the game ended - completely going against what the refs ultimately decided. he said you don't have to be still, that LeBron planted his left foot and at that point did enough to draw the charge. whether you disagree or not, it points to the fact it wasn't conclusive.

Hmmm. Maybe,. So are you just saying the refs made a subjective call with which you disagree or are you saying thqt this is evidence, somehow, of a desire to throw the game to GS? Btw, I never liked Javie when he was a ref. He inserted himself into games all the time, even ejecting a mascot once.

[smokymountainrain]

Hmmm. Maybe,. So are you just saying the refs made a subjective call with which you disagree or are you saying thqt this is evidence, somehow, of a desire to throw the game to GS? Btw, I never liked Javie when he was a ref. He inserted himself into games all the time, even ejecting a mascot once.

what i'm saying is they overturned the call on the court despite the fact it wasn't conclusive. has nothing to do with whether I agree. you shouldn't overturn a call unless there is evidence is conclusive that the call on the court (or field) was wrong. I've never been a conspiracy guy and I won't start now. it was just a piss poor decision and one that should never happen. definitely not saying they had nefarious motives - rather made what I consider to be an inexcusable error that turned the game and possibly the series. its a shame.

[creekster]

what i'm saying is they overturned the call on the court despite the fact it wasn't conclusive. has nothing to do with whether I agree. you shouldn't overturn a call unless it is evidence is conclusive that the call on the court (or field) was wrong. I've never been a conspiracy guy and I won't start now. it was just a piss poor decision and one that should never happen. definitely not saying they had nefarious motives - rather made what I consider to be an inexcusable error that turned the game and possibly the series. its a shame.

Except it was not that conclusive. The refs disagreed in real time. The ref behind the play deferred to the ref in front of the play for the call, but in this instance the margin of support for the call is razor thin because they had to pick ONE call in order to even begin the review process. Then, after reviewing the call, they concluded there was sufficient evidence to reverse the call, which conclusion I agreed with. I thought ti was an obvious block. So your beef is not the rule or the call but merely that they subjectively erred in making a subjective evaluation of the quantum of evidence necessary to reverse a call. The two guys go to the monitor, look at it and the one guy says "You know, you';re right, it WAS a block." That is pretty hard to complain about, really. Unless you think they got it wrong (which you don't seem to be arguing here).

[smokymountainrain]

Except it was not that conclusive. The refs disagreed in real time. The ref behind the play deferred to the ref in front of the play for the call, but in this instance the margin of support for the call is razor thin because they had to pick ONE call in order to even begin the review process. Then, after reviewing the call, they concluded there was sufficient evidence to reverse the call, which conclusion I agreed with. I thought ti was an obvious block. So your beef is not the rule or the call but merely that they subjectively erred in making a subjective evaluation of the quantum of evidence necessary to reverse a call. The two guys go to the monitor, look at it and the one guy says "You know, you';re right, it WAS a block." That is pretty hard to complain about, really. Unless you think they got it wrong (which you don't seem to be arguing here).

my opinion is that I don't know - initially I thought it was a block, but I've seen explanations since that lead me to believe there is gray area, that a charge could have been appropriate. your argument about them disagreeing in real time is solid, but the fact is, the ref who called the charge got the call. it was indeed a called charge. they overturned the call. where you and I disagree is that you think there was sufficient evidence, I do not. if it can go either way, they shouldn't overturn the call on the court - that is where I stand.

too many people are getting hung up on it being the "right call" - that's just their opinion and you shouldn't overturn calls on opinion. there has to be conclusive - perhaps incontrovertible is a better word - evidence. if it can be disputed - and it can - they should leave it as is.

but to avoid going around in circles, if you want to argue there was no real call on the court - while I disagree - I can't argue that because my entire argument is built on the fact a call was made on the court.

[Donuthole]

2017-18 NBA season

its not that complicated. Review shouldn’t be used for calls that require subjective interpretation. Whether a foot is on a line is objective, but whether someone is in a legal guarding position and at what point in time they are in the position relative to another player is completely subjective.

It’s stupid that the rule allows that, but its even stupider that they reviewed the play and felt like they could conclusively determine something subjective like legal guarding position after the fact based on that evidence.

The spirit of the rule was violated by the interpretation, IMO. Sure they can justify it with the technical language of the rule, but I, like Javie, was super convinced that there is no way they would change the call based on that evidence.

[Flystripper]

its not that complicated. Review shouldn’t be used for calls that require subjective interpretation. Whether a foot is on a line is objective, but whether someone is in a legal guarding position and at what point in time they are in the position relative to another player is completely subjective.

It’s stupid that the rule allows that, but its even stupider that they reviewed the play and felt like they could conclusively determine something subjective like legal guarding position after the fact based on that evidence.

The spirit of the rule was violated by the interpretation, IMO. Sure they can justify it with the technical language of the rule, but I, like Javie, was super convinced that there is no way they would change the call based on that evidence.

Unfortunately the rules allow for them to review and overturn based on legal guarding position. They shouldn't, but they do. I don't know how they ever overturn a block/charge call due to its subjective nature (which is SMRs point) but they did. They should change the rule back to is he in the circle or is he out of the circle.

[Northwestcoug]

agree with Santos, but you are right here - the rule says you can review it. bad rule. the problem is that it wasn't conclusive. and to your point about Javie just saying that to support the refs, he maintained it was a charge 30 minutes after the game ended - completely going against what the refs ultimately decided. he said you don't have to be still, that LeBron planted his left foot and at that point did enough to draw the charge. whether you disagree or not, it points to the fact it wasn't conclusive.

That's how I saw it. My sense is that he tracks with the refs' calls most of the time. I was surprised because he seemed adamant it was a charge.

[Donuthole]

Unfortunately the rules allow for them to review and overturn based on legal guarding position. They shouldn't, but they do. I don't know how they ever overturn a block/charge call due to its subjective nature (which is SMRs point) but they did. They should change the rule back to is he in the circle or is he out of the circle.

Yes, I know the rules allow it. I’m saying a) it’s dumb that that allow it, but b) just because they allow it doesn’t mean the refs should have done it. The refs have discretion. They should have used that discretion to say “this is a judgment call which requires a lot of subjective interpretation. Given the game circumstances, the implications of overturning a call on the court, and most importantly, the fact that two of us three on-court refs saw things differently and initially made on-court conclusions which were 180 degrees of one another, this is probably something which is too subjective to make a clear conclusion. So because we have confirmed that LBj’s feet were outside the the line, we’re going to leave the call as it was on the court.”

[SteelBlue]

I remember semi-serious, mostly "hot take" talk of a Lebron finals MVP even as the loser in 2015. I wonder if he has multiple efforts like the one yesterday could this be the year they actually do something like award it to a losing player? He was quite obviously the best player on the court yesterday. If it feels that way every game, even in a 4 game sweep, would they ever pull that trigger?

[smokymountainrain]

DH said that much better than I did. I believe we are in complete agreement!

[smokymountainrain]

I remember semi-serious, mostly "hot take" talk of a Lebron finals MVP even as the loser in 2015. I wonder if he has multiple efforts like the one yesterday could this be the year they actually do something like award it to a losing player? He was quite obviously the best player on the court yesterday. If it feels that way every game, even in a 4 game sweep, would they ever pull that trigger?

I'm a LeBron apologist.

having said that if the MVP really is for most valuable player, in my mind you can't give it to him if they lose. my argument being that if he didn't play in the series and was replaced by some average player, they still lose. lose with him, lose without him. where's the value?

if MVP means best player of the series, sure give it to him. but change the name of the award.

[Donuthole]

2017-18 NBA season

LeBron is definitely more valuable to his team than any of the Warriors are to their team. So yes, he should win it if he continues to perform even close to this level. Even in a sweep.

The title of the award doesn’t need to be changed, because the title says nothing about which team the player should come from.

[jay santos]

KD will likely be series MVP, and I think there's a chance KD might be the least valuable player on both teams, in terms of what he adds, which I think might be negative. I loved how they showed Kerr yelling at him in a timeout to share the ball in the nicest way possible so as not to offend your superstar. "Shoot the ball when you have a shot or make a move when you're deep in the shot clock, but early in the shot clock trust your teammates and share the ball." Next possession KD catches the ball with his back to basket 20 ft from basket with 15+ seconds on shot clock. Holds it for a couple seconds, squares, holds for a couple more seconds, jabs, dribbles for a few more seconds, then fall away jumper. Kerr is jumping up and down screaming PASS PASS in the background.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I'm a LeBron apologist.

having said that if the MVP really is for most valuable player, in my mind you can't give it to him if they lose. my argument being that if he didn't play in the series and was replaced by some average player, they still lose. lose with him, lose without him. where's the value?

if MVP means best player of the series, sure give it to him. but change the name of the award.

Even as a LeBron James apologist you certainly cannot apologize for his awful beard, right?

[Sizzle]

I'm a LeBron apologist.

having said that if the MVP really is for most valuable player, in my mind you can't give it to him if they lose. my argument being that if he didn't play in the series and was replaced by some average player, they still lose. lose with him, lose without him. where's the value?

if MVP means best player of the series, sure give it to him. but change the name of the award.

List 1:
Johnson: $8
Stevenson: $5
Jackson: $4

List 2:
Thompson: $14
Smith: $1
Miller: $1

Which name has the most value associated with it?