2023 NBA Playoffs thread

[amg2002]

Lakers shot 25-29 Free Throws
Warriors shot 5-6

A 20 point difference just at the line.

24 Fouls called on the Warriors
12 on the Lakers

Warriors won the O Rebounds 14-13

Turnovers 8-8

Both teams made 43 shots

When a game is decided at the FT line, I always question that the game was ultimately decided by the refs. I'm not saying they called a bad game...but...

Warriors in 6!

[Easycards]

Originally Posted by amg2002

Lakers shot 25-29 Free Throws
Warriors shot 5-6

A 20 point difference just at the line.

24 Fouls called on the Warriors
12 on the Lakers

Warriors won the O Rebounds 14-13

Turnovers 8-8

Both teams made 43 shots

When a game is decided at the FT line, I always question that the game was ultimately decided by the refs. I'm not saying they called a bad game...but...

Warriors in 6!

That FT differential is going to remain if both teams continue to play the way they did. Lakers were in the paint all night, warriors weren’t nearly as much. And like 3 of their rebounds and shots in the paint came in a single possession where Looney kept getting his own board and trying to put it back in.

You aren’t going to get nearly as many foul calls shooting the 3. This isn’t really a revelation and I’ll bet anything both teams are talking about it when looking at their preparation for game 2.

[indyguy]

The Warriors shot 53 3s and outscored the Lakers by 45 from the 3 point line. Don't cry about a discrepancy in free throws! They consciously took 28 more 3s than the Lakers. Drive to the rim half those 28 and I'm sure you end up with more free throw attempts.

Got outscored by 26 in the paint and 20 at the FT. Higher percentage shots led to the win.

[JustinVerlander07]

It's gonna be a series of coaching. Think Kerr figured it out in the end, I'd expect a lot of the Poole party lineup playing game 2 to avoid LeBron/AD sitting in the paint so much.

[amg2002]

Originally Posted by indyguy

The Warriors shot 53 3s and outscored the Lakers by 45 from the 3 point line. Don't cry about a discrepancy in free throws! They consciously took 28 more 3s than the Lakers. Drive to the rim half those 28 and I'm sure you end up with more free throw attempts.

Got outscored by 26 in the paint and 20 at the FT. Higher percentage shots led to the win.

Just because you play inside doesn't mean there should be this much of a discrepancy.

Watching the game and many replays, there were so many touch fouls called that were never called in the Kings/Warriors series. There is something to say about "selling" a foul, however, even the announcers were regularly mentioning the acting going on by the Lakers to get calls.

AD played lights out...the best player on the floor last night. That kind of play, watching a lot of AD this year, won't continue.

[BlueXtreme]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

It's gonna be a series of coaching. Think Kerr figured it out in the end, I'd expect a lot of the Poole party lineup playing game 2 to avoid LeBron/AD sitting in the paint so much.

And then how do the Lakers respond to that adjustment? They didn’t have many answers in the 4th

[ballhawkdawk]

Originally Posted by Easycards

That FT differential is going to remain if both teams continue to play the way they did. Lakers were in the paint all night, warriors weren’t nearly as much. And like 3 of their rebounds and shots in the paint came in a single possession where Looney kept getting his own board and trying to put it back in.

You aren’t going to get nearly as many foul calls shooting the 3. This isn’t really a revelation and I’ll bet anything both teams are talking about it when looking at their preparation for game 2.

I agree, but let's look at the FTA for the four games these teams played against each other in the regular season... 25/23, 26/12, 34/21, and 22/18. These were all in favor of the Lakers... but what are the chances we see another 29/6 disparity and paint monster Dennis Schroder taking 10 of them?

It's an interesting series to me. Call me crazy, but I'm not ready to crown a series winner after a close game 1.

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by BlueXtreme

And then how do the Lakers respond to that adjustment? They didn’t have many answers in the 4th

Yup, will be interesting the counter. I think they stay status quo until Wiggins starts to burn LeBron not fully guarding him on the perimeter.

[BlueXtreme]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

Yup, will be interesting the counter. I think they stay status quo until Wiggins starts to burn LeBron not fully guarding him on the perimeter.

It wasn’t just the Warriors shooting that improved. They were also getting more offensive rebounds. I’m curious how the Lakers counter

[eastbayak]

Originally Posted by amg2002

Lakers shot 25-29 Free Throws
Warriors shot 5-6

A 20 point difference just at the line.

24 Fouls called on the Warriors
12 on the Lakers

Warriors won the O Rebounds 14-13

Turnovers 8-8

Both teams made 43 shots

When a game is decided at the FT line, I always question that the game was ultimately decided by the refs. I'm not saying they called a bad game...but...

Warriors in 6!

You're a wise one.

Even if half of their shots were 3s, Dubs should've still gone to the line way more than 6 times. I noticed some calls that were missed for the Dubs that weren't missed for the Lakers.

But it is what it is.

[daeve]

Originally Posted by Easycards

That FT differential is going to remain if both teams continue to play the way they did. Lakers were in the paint all night, warriors weren’t nearly as much. And like 3 of their rebounds and shots in the paint came in a single possession where Looney kept getting his own board and trying to put it back in.

You aren’t going to get nearly as many foul calls shooting the 3. This isn’t really a revelation and I’ll bet anything both teams are talking about it when looking at their preparation for game 2.

The Lakers both did a good job protecting the rim and also getting a friendly whistle though. Refs almost gave away the plot with the blatant AD foul they tried to call on Vandy too. I'm sorry, and I admit he did a good job but with how often he contested at the rim, for him to end up with only 2 fouls is uh, "interesting".

[Easycards]

Originally Posted by daeve

The Lakers both did a good job protecting the rim and also getting a friendly whistle though. Refs almost gave away the plot with the blatant AD foul they tried to call on Vandy too. I'm sorry, and I admit he did a good job but with how often he contested at the rim, for him to end up with only 2 fouls is uh, "interesting".

It’s fascinating to see your take on the AD call and the reason is that I was watching with a friend who hates the lakers (for context). He was upset they switched that call because he felt it benefitted the lakers to keep vandy out of foul trouble there.

It seems like different perspectives, so someone was going to hate the call no matter who was assessed the foul - despite it being in GSW favor regardless.

[Easycards]

Originally Posted by ballhawkdawk

I agree, but let's look at the FTA for the four games these teams played against each other in the regular season... 25/23, 26/12, 34/21, and 22/18. These were all in favor of the Lakers... but what are the chances we see another 29/6 disparity and paint monster Dennis Schroder taking 10 of them?

It's an interesting series to me. Call me crazy, but I'm not ready to crown a series winner after a close game 1.

The lakers had a massive FT differential all year, largely explained by the style of play attacking the paint. It want even excessive when you look at teams with the largest FT differential in the last 1-2 decades.

In the early part of the year before the mid season trades it was even worse because they had no dimension to their offense aside from throwing themselves into the paint.

[eastbayak]

Am I right or am I right?

[daeve]

Originally Posted by Easycards

It’s fascinating to see your take on the AD call and the reason is that I was watching with a friend who hates the lakers (for context). He was upset they switched that call because he felt it benefitted the lakers to keep vandy out of foul trouble there.

It seems like different perspectives, so someone was going to hate the call no matter who was assessed the foul - despite it being in GSW favor regardless.

My perspective has not changed, refs protect the Lakers' best players. They are auto-programmed to do so. Which is why in the heat of the moment they called something that looked unfavorable, giving Vandy one that would've put him in trouble, instead of AD, who had only 1 foul going late into the 4th and with protecting the rim like he did all game.

Wanna know why GS doesn't drive as much? They don't get calls against the Lakers, plain and simple. Next time watch how many times Steph gets clipped and/or has to tumble fall at the end of a lay-in. They weren't all fouls, most were not, in fact. But I saw several in the 4th that would've been fouls if it was Reaves/Schroeder/Bron driving. We saw it all during the month of March when Reaves was getting a better whistle than 2x reigning MVP Jokic, who gets hip-checked on damn near every spin move into a shot he takes, and very rarely ever gets a whistle.

[daeve]

https://twitter.com/ESPNStatsInfo/st...91526403833856

The Warriors made 15 more threes than the Lakers and lost.

They were previously 13-0 in franchise history when making 15 more threes than their opponent, winning those games by an average of 22.6 PPG.

So what we saw last night was unprecedented. Should the Lakers have more FTA due to their style of play? Yes. Should they have 2 individual players who get more FTA than the entire FTA for GS? You be the judge.

[Easycards]

Originally Posted by daeve

My perspective has not changed, refs protect the Lakers' best players. They are auto-programmed to do so. Which is why in the heat of the moment they called something that looked unfavorable, giving Vandy one that would've put him in trouble, instead of AD, who had only 1 foul going late into the 4th and with protecting the rim like he did all game.

Wanna know why GS doesn't drive as much? They don't get calls against the Lakers, plain and simple. Next time watch how many times Steph gets clipped and/or has to tumble fall at the end of a lay-in. They weren't all fouls, most were not, in fact. But I saw several in the 4th that would've been fouls if it was Reaves/Schroeder/Bron driving. We saw it all during the month of March when Reaves was getting a better whistle than 2x reigning MVP Jokic, who gets hip-checked on damn near every spin move into a shot he takes, and very rarely ever gets a whistle.

I’m referring to 2 people, both who have a rooting interest that favors the GSW, who saw the same play and felt opposite about the call. You thought it favored the lakers because they tried to call it on Vandy before switching to AD. He felt like it should’ve remained on Vandy, who was the best perimeter defender and was closer to foul trouble.

No matter what, one of you was going to get pissed and accuse the refs of favoring the lakers because of your different perspectives on that play… despite it being a foul call regardless. Can’t please everyone, obviously.

[daeve]

Originally Posted by Easycards

I’m referring to 2 people, both who have a rooting interest that favors the GSW, who saw the same play and felt opposite about the call. You thought it favored the lakers because they tried to call it on Vandy before switching to AD. He felt like it should’ve remained on Vandy, who was the best perimeter defender and was closer to foul trouble.

No matter what, one of you was going to get pissed and accuse the refs of favoring the lakers because of your different perspectives on that play… despite it being a foul call regardless. Can’t please everyone, obviously.

I would never hope for the wrong call to be made. Idk why you're comparing me to your buddy who I've never met. I also don't actively root against the Lakers, I just hate inconsistent or biased calls. I have as many Bron cards as I do Steph, and not that many of either.

I merely like to enjoy a fair game, what a novel concept I know.

[HeyRelaxGuy]

Like many of you here pointed out, AD looked like the best player on the planet last night. He dominated both sides of the floor. I was laughing when he scored in his own basket, but made up for it seconds later with a monster dunk. Just incredible! But we all know that seeing him play at his high level is rare nowadays. I just can't see him doing this next game and the game after that ...

Half of the Warriors squad can score 3s. How do you beat a team like this in the playoffs? If they can stay healthy, then I think they are winning again this year.

[indyguy]

Originally Posted by amg2002

Just because you play inside doesn't mean there should be this much of a discrepancy.

Watching the game and many replays, there were so many touch fouls called that were never called in the Kings/Warriors series. There is something to say about "selling" a foul, however, even the announcers were regularly mentioning the acting going on by the Lakers to get calls.

AD played lights out...the best player on the floor last night. That kind of play, watching a lot of AD this year, won't continue.

Yes, that is exactly what it means. That is why you go inside.

1. Higher percentage shots for either the person that is dribble driving or the shooter who should be open as help defense comes over.

2. Draw fouls on the drive or the and-1 attempt.

They outscored the Warriors by 26 in the paint. That means more attempts in the paint. The Warriors chose to live outside the 3 point line. The Lakers chose to be in the paint and go for the physical play. It worked in their favor.

BTW, I'm rooting for Golden State. I'm just being realistic.

[Easycards]

Originally Posted by daeve

I would never hope for the wrong call to be made. Idk why you're comparing me to your buddy who I've never met. I also don't actively root against the Lakers, I just hate inconsistent or biased calls. I have as many Bron cards as I do Steph, and not that many of either.

I merely like to enjoy a fair game, what a novel concept I know.

I am not comparing you. I’m pointing out that regardless of how that foul was called there was someone out there who was going to be mad and point to it as another sign of bad officiating.

So in other words, even when they get a foul call there is someone who would be up in arms about it. If they’d kept it on Vandy he’d be happy and you’d be here complaining more about it being on the wrong guy.

In his eyes, he is right. In your eyes, you’re right. The point lost on you is that the warriors got the call and still someone is bound to be left mad about it. That’s what’s fascinating to me.

[Easycards]

Originally Posted by indyguy

Yes, that is exactly what it means. That is why you go inside.

1. Higher percentage shots for either the person that is dribble driving or the shooter who should be open as help defense comes over.

2. Draw fouls on the drive or the and-1 attempt.

They outscored the Warriors by 26 in the paint. That means more attempts in the paint. The Warriors chose to live outside the 3 point line. The Lakers chose to be in the paint and go for the physical play. It worked in their favor.

BTW, I'm rooting for Golden State. I'm just being realistic.

The thing is that GSW are playing the way they want to play and it worked well for them in many ways. That’s exactly the style they want. They need Poole to tighten up on his choices, mix in more pick and rolls/pops and ball screens for curry, and they’ll adjust in those ways and others. They were in it and made their patented late run. The series is nowhere close to over. I expect a lot of zigging and zagging in the game plans from both sides as the series progresses.

[daeve]

Originally Posted by Easycards

I am not comparing you. I’m pointing out that regardless of how that foul was called there was someone out there who was going to be mad and point to it as another sign of bad officiating.

So in other words, even when they get a foul call there is someone who would be up in arms about it. If they’d kept it on Vandy he’d be happy and you’d be here complaining more about it being on the wrong guy.

In his eyes, he is right. In your eyes, you’re right. The point lost on you is that the warriors got the call and still someone is bound to be left mad about it. That’s what’s fascinating to me.

I got it. Biased fans watch sports, you're not telling me anything I don't know. But that's not me. I have very little incentive to root one way or the other in the LAL/GS series. But seeing how the whistles go, I would rather GS advance to play since in a series vs Denver, since the whistle would likely be more fair.

The whole "that's just LA's game, driving to the rim" is a perfect cover-up for the casual enough fans who won't look into how big the discrepancy is. Also gives the moronic talking heads on Disney something to lean into.

Either way, I don't see LA winning G2. Refs will probably overcompensate after giving away the plot in G1, and then we'll see what happens after that. Guessing Bron is energized for G3 in LA and probably takes that. The real game will be G4. Do the zebras show up for that one or does GS?

[Easycards]

Originally Posted by daeve

I got it. Biased fans watch sports, you're not telling me anything I don't know. But that's not me. I have very little incentive to root one way or the other in the LAL/GS series. But seeing how the whistles go, I would rather GS advance to play since in a series vs Denver, since the whistle would likely be more fair.

The whole "that's just LA's game, driving to the rim" is a perfect cover-up for the casual enough fans who won't look into how big the discrepancy is. Also gives the moronic talking heads on Disney something to lean into.

Either way, I don't see LA winning G2. Refs will probably overcompensate after giving away the plot in G1, and then we'll see what happens after that. Guessing Bron is energized for G3 in LA and probably takes that. The real game will be G4. Do the zebras show up for that one or does GS?

An honest question: why watch any sport/series if you genuinely believe there is a fix in? If I believed that I’d relegate the sport to the same realm as WWE and probably never watch or take it seriously again.

[eastbayak]

Originally Posted by Easycards

An honest question: why watch any sport/series if you genuinely believe there is a fix in? If I believed that I’d relegate the sport to the same realm as WWE and probably never watch or take it seriously again.

An honest question: Has there never been a fix in the past (in the NBA)?