***2018-19 NBA REGULAR SEASON THREAD***

didnt shaq average like a 20/10 that year? I mean he wasn't prime shaq but still very good

Originally posted by monsterzero789:

didnt shaq average like a 20/10 that year? I mean he wasn't prime shaq but still very good

20/9 and he should have been the MVP the year before.

Spurs home crowd gave a classy sendoff to future Hall Of Famer Dirk Nowitzki.

Raptors

I remember Sacramento being a respectable team at one point. Yeah, they still have 2 years to go.

Originally posted by JustinMT:

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by JustinMT:

Originally posted by 4ML:

Amazing commercial. Love me some Wade.

Paul Pierce probably salty about that too.

I don't think Pierce is salty. The producers set him up by asking him who was the better player between him and Wade and I think it's more even than people think. Beadle and Rose were a little too harsh in their criticism of him. If you gave him a motivated Shaq or KG/ Allen earlier in their careers I think Pierce wins a couple more rings easily.

Don't think it's close. Wade is a better player.

Shaq averaged 13 ppg against the Mavs? Wade won that chip...he didn't need Shaq to win that championship.

Maybe not to win the Finals but to get there, he needed Shaq. Wade's performance in the Finals that year was incredible but he couldn't have made it there by himself. He needed another Superstar, which is fine but Pierce never had that in Boston. Closest thing he had was Antoine Walker. Lol

I think Wade could have won that chip with any good Center. Shaq wasn't close to his prime. He was at that stage an all-star level player - not a superstar or the dominant player he used to be by any stretch of imagination.

He averaged like 18 and 10 with 1.5 blocks a game in the playoffs.

Paul Pierce wasn't a passer or a defender like Wade. He couldn't handle the ball like Wade either. Paul Pierce was strictly a scorer.

And Walker wasn't a complete scrub. He averaged around 21-22ppg and 8-9rebs a game for a bunch of seasons with his time with Celtics.

Grayson Allen for Rookie of the Year! lol

Originally posted by monsterzero789:

didnt shaq average like a 20/10 that year? I mean he wasn't prime shaq but still very good

Yup...he was a very good player. That's my point. Pierce was acting like it was the superstar Shaq. Pierce had Garnett, Ray Allen, young Rondo, and a pretty good defensive center in Perkins and won 1 chip.

Originally posted by JustinMT:
Grayson Allen for Rookie of the Year! lol

40 points! Way better than Trae and Doncic put together and it's not even close.

Originally posted by Jiks:

Originally posted by JustinMT:

Grayson Allen for Rookie of the Year! lol

40 points! Way better than Trae and Doncic put together and it's not even close.

14 fts...

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by JustinMT:

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by JustinMT:

Originally posted by 4ML:

Amazing commercial. Love me some Wade.

Paul Pierce probably salty about that too.

I don't think Pierce is salty. The producers set him up by asking him who was the better player between him and Wade and I think it's more even than people think. Beadle and Rose were a little too harsh in their criticism of him. If you gave him a motivated Shaq or KG/ Allen earlier in their careers I think Pierce wins a couple more rings easily.

Don't think it's close. Wade is a better player.

Shaq averaged 13 ppg against the Mavs? Wade won that chip...he didn't need Shaq to win that championship.

Maybe not to win the Finals but to get there, he needed Shaq. Wade's performance in the Finals that year was incredible but he couldn't have made it there by himself. He needed another Superstar, which is fine but Pierce never had that in Boston. Closest thing he had was Antoine Walker. Lol

I think Wade could have won that chip with any good Center. Shaq wasn't close to his prime. He was at that stage an all-star level player - not a superstar or the dominant player he used to be by any stretch of imagination.

He averaged like 18 and 10 with 1.5 blocks a game in the playoffs.

Paul Pierce wasn't a passer or a defender like Wade. He couldn't handle the ball like Wade either. Paul Pierce was strictly a scorer.

And Walker wasn't a complete scrub. He averaged around 21-22ppg and 8-9rebs a game for a bunch of seasons with his time with Celtics.

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by monsterzero789:

didnt shaq average like a 20/10 that year? I mean he wasn't prime shaq but still very good

Yup...he was a very good player. That's my point. Pierce was acting like it was the superstar Shaq. Pierce had Garnett, Ray Allen, young Rondo, and a pretty good defensive center in Perkins and won 1 chip.

He wasn't acting like it was superstar Shaq. He was just saying having a guy like Shaq in the post makes a huge difference. He also said if Boston's Big 3 were together a few years earlier when they were all slightly younger, they probably get more rings, which is true.

You're taking what he's saying at smug value and it's not. He had a producer in his ear telling him to start a hot take about himself and people are taking it face value. I've worked on those kind of shows. Behind the scenes, you have someone telling the hosts of the show what to say, the more controversial the better cause that means more viewers on tv and YouTube. It's the main reason Stephen A is the highest paid tv personality on tv and radio for ESPN. Do you really think that those are always his true opinions or Kellerman's? No, they argue what side they have to be on and they make it as intense as possible because it makes for good tv.

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by JustinMT:

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by JustinMT:

Originally posted by 4ML:

Amazing commercial. Love me some Wade.

Paul Pierce probably salty about that too.

I don't think Pierce is salty. The producers set him up by asking him who was the better player between him and Wade and I think it's more even than people think. Beadle and Rose were a little too harsh in their criticism of him. If you gave him a motivated Shaq or KG/ Allen earlier in their careers I think Pierce wins a couple more rings easily.

Don't think it's close. Wade is a better player.

Shaq averaged 13 ppg against the Mavs? Wade won that chip...he didn't need Shaq to win that championship.

Maybe not to win the Finals but to get there, he needed Shaq. Wade's performance in the Finals that year was incredible but he couldn't have made it there by himself. He needed another Superstar, which is fine but Pierce never had that in Boston. Closest thing he had was Antoine Walker. Lol

I think Wade could have won that chip with any good Center. Shaq wasn't close to his prime. He was at that stage an all-star level player - not a superstar or the dominant player he used to be by any stretch of imagination.

He averaged like 18 and 10 with 1.5 blocks a game in the playoffs.

Paul Pierce wasn't a passer or a defender like Wade. He couldn't handle the ball like Wade either. Paul Pierce was strictly a scorer.

And Walker wasn't a complete scrub. He averaged around 21-22ppg and 8-9rebs a game for a bunch of seasons with his time with Celtics.

Walker was a chucker who consistently hero balled and didn't work inside the designed offense. He could have been great but he wasn't nearly as good as his stats indicate.

Just should be noted.

Originally posted by JustinMT:

He wasn't acting like it was superstar Shaq. He was just saying having a guy like Shaq in the post makes a huge difference. He also said if Boston's Big 3 were together a few years earlier when they were all slightly younger, they probably get more rings, which is true.

You're taking what he's saying at smug value and it's not. He had a producer in his ear telling him to start a hot take about himself and people are taking it face value. I've worked on those kind of shows. Behind the scenes, you have someone telling the hosts of the show what to say, the more controversial the better cause that means more viewers on tv and YouTube. It's the main reason Stephen A is the highest paid tv personality on tv and radio for ESPN. Do you really think that those are always his true opinions or Kellerman's? No, they argue what side they have to be on and they make it as intense as possible because it makes for good tv.

Oh I don't watch those shows - haven't for almost a decade. Don't have time for it and I think they're silly - meant for casual fans imho.

I saw video of Pierce's comments bc they were all over bleacher report.

Obviously you have more knowledge about how these shows work - so I'll take your word for it.

Originally posted by DaBum:

Walker was a chucker who consistently hero balled and didn't work inside the designed offense. He could have been great but he wasn't nearly as good as his stats indicate.

Just should be noted.

Agreed. I think both Walker and Pierce were chuckers when playing together in Boston.

Oh and Harden v. Utah in first round. We will see a lot of flopping on the court by Rockets and a lot of whining on the board here