Nah... don't want to get jumped.
The Battle Of 1 & 2: The Chef vs. The Beard Warriors vs Rockets WCF Thread
- Thread starter Shameonyou
- Start date
Nah... don't want to get jumped.
People doing that?If I see one more post comparing these fakkits to hakeems rockets I'm gona start blocking mothafukkas on here
Warriors at least try to play some D. Rockets don't play any.
Peaking to me is playing at the highest possible level you can play at for a generous period of time - not one good game, then a bad game or a few good games followed by a few bad games. Houston is incapable of doing that since their offensive philosophy is built on shooting the 3-ball with players that are inconsistent, average/below average shooters:
Ariza had shooting months with 36%, 33%, 43%, 39%, 44% FG.
Smith had shooting months with 30%, 29%, 38%, 33%, 22% 3PFG
Terry had shooting months with 39%, 46%, 40%, 36%, 42% FG.
Brewer had shooting months with 39%, 45%, 40%, 41% FG (20%, 27%, 27%, 8% 3PFG)
They didn't string together two consistent performances in that Clippers series.
What I'm saying is Houston's wins are largely built on having inexplicably hot games against actual playoff competition.
A three game win streak, proof of this? What happened in Game 6 doesn't happen 99/100. Without that anomaly we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the Clippers would be in the WCF. There was no 'peaking' about the performance, they just rode a late-3rd/4th quarter high.
"Nothing" is an empty prose that doesn't exist in basketball. I would say that since the Rockets were #2 in transition points this season - clearly the effect on shooting was minimal given the fact your four main shooters (outside of Harden) had inconsistent shooting %s across the entire season.
It has absolutely nothing to do with that. At all.
My take really has nothing to do with popular opinion. What is wrong with you? How can you not possibly see that an inconsistent star player with inconsistent role players who are average to below average shooters with an offense that's predicated on shooting, can't peak in a playoff situation? Will you still claim they're peaking if they come out in Game 1 and the team has a bad shooting night as a collective; leading to a comprehensive victory for Golden State? Or will you claim they're peaking if they bounce back in Game 2 with a solid shooting performance, followed by another bad one, then back to having a good one again?
I don't get what's so hard to understand.
Can't see that happening at all. Warriors have the best defense in the league, they're not gonna give up 120+ points like it's a regular thing. Only two teams managed to score 120+ points against them this season in regular time - neither were the Rockets.
That doesn't mean they're peaking.....
h2o_proof
Thread Closed...As Usual
Peaking and Peak are two different things, true enough to be at your peak is the highest you can go, where peaking is heading in that direction. So I can't answer your question,until after the game. Unlike you, I can't predict how the game will go based on individual player stats. I can however say that if Houston loses the series, then obviously they were at there peak, meaning they couldn't play any better than what they already have. And this is the freaking playoffs, good/bad games are for coaches to make speeches out of, only thing that matters is wins and losses, so if you wanna say 3 wins in a row only consisted of 1 good game, that type of semantic means nothing in sports, in particular playoff/tournament situations.
Answer me this though, how upset would you be if GSW were to lose the series? I ask that because you've encapsulated yourself within a 'foolproof' argument as though player averages and statistical probability are the only determining factors for the outcome of this series. You're even lowkey shytting on LAC by saying we rode an inexplicable 3rd quarter to victory in game 6. Dude, that was a fukking in game adjustment! 3rd quarters have been our achilles heel, and McHale finally stepped out of his box and allowed our bench to serve a purpose other than giving the starters a breather. That turned the series around, but you're the only one who found it inexplicable! Doc sure knew what it was, and so did the players on the court.
I'm not saying I have the answers or can call the series, no one knows whats gonna happen, but I'm looking for a good series, not looking to bash one team or another based on stats since I'm not out there on the court with them. I find it hard to understand how you will even be able to enjoy the games since you already got it figured out. Come back and holler at me when the series is over.
You in Houston bro?
Ill swing through if youre there. i know you trolling though :laff"
Yeah till next weel
94/95 was hakeem at his peak....
Hakeem at his peak is arguably the goat center
I do think the rockets will make this series more competitive than people expect
up until game 6 i would have predicted a sweep for the warriors
I think the rockets can win a game or 2 now
h2o_proof
Thread Closed...As Usual
I'd say 93/94 was Hakeem at his peak, but 94/95 Hakeem had a better finals performance. Either way, take the comparison with a grain of salt, because no one or no team can EVER compare to the 93/94 squad. Hakeem is still the only single superstar to take a team to the finals BY HIMSELF. I've heard people bring up the Piston squad that beat LA, but the 4 b-level stars were still way more than what Hakeem had to work with.