The Eastern conference finals is going to be a blast! Game one was fantastic. I’m rooting for the Hawks to win it all at this point. They are so much fun to watch.
It shows that the league is competitive and you have to work hard to win it. I'm from Europe and in soccer, several leagues have always the same Champions (or a cycle between 2-3 teams) because they don't apply the NBA model. So it's kind of boring and the wealthiest teams are often champions without even playing well, they are just stronger than the others. What makes NBA special is exactly having a Toronto team winning it all against a crazy Warriors team or the Nets and LA not winning this year. You really should cherish what you have in the NBA, is the PERFECT model
Trae Young is such a baller. Wasn't expecting that he had this extra gear. By far the best and most consistent player of the PO without seeing the stats. Milwaukee will have a tough series, I actually think Atlanta will be in the Finals
the raptors won 58 games and were a 2 seed. this is not the same at all. the hawks winning would definitely solidify this as the single weirdest year of the nba playoffs. it's funny that the raptors title is looked at strangely because one opponent was injured. this year, all three of the best teams had major, major injuries, making it a feeding frenzy of sorts among a bunch of meh options. one reason toronto's title strikes people as flukey is that they weren't taken seriously as contenders before or after, but they were better than atlanta (or phx, tbh) before, and i'm guessing after (they won 53 games AFTER leonard left). and the nba is generally the perfect model because it employs longer series instead of one-shot affairs that lead to flukes. this year, mass injuries led to flukes, and i'd rather a team like the bucks--who have competed and grinded for years (this isn't the lakers or GS or other big market royalty like you're implying with the soccer reference)--win than some random team like atlanta who just got healthy and hot at the right time. if atl wins it all, i think people will look back and really scratch their heads. and no, it won't mean that it's a new game. unless major injuries become the rule. in which case, i'm not sure the league survives. the nba became a thing because of the stars. if none of them are playing in the playoffs, that's doom.
Young should chill on the Curry 3pts like attempts but I'd say his stamina is impressive in these playoffs . His ability to get to the line ( with help from the refs) and make them boost his low efficiency from the field ( expected for a 6'1 guy in the playoffs) ATL has some nice players around him
atl did a good job building around a guy that's hard to build around. mvp of the game was capela, imo, who kept giannis out of his comfort spots down the stretch and forced some misses on drives. also cleaned up trae's missed shot when the refs didn't bail him out with a touch foul.
i don't see how the raptors title would be considered a fluke they had been a consistent playoff team for a while before 2019 but kept running into lebron and as good as derozan is, he's not a guy who can lead a team to a title. once lebron left the east and they replaced derozan with kawhi, they were set. and the warriors being banged up obviously helped, although i won't hold that against toronto considering half the cavs team was injured in '15 when the warriors won it all
i don't know if you're disagreeing with me or not, but the purpose of my statement was the same as yours: that year's raptors were quite different than this year's hawks. one argument seems to be: if the hawks can win, anyone can win, isn't that great?! my argument is if anyone can win, it isn't great. it devalues the whole enterprise. the raptors were one of a handful of teams that seemed to have a shot at the beginning of the playoffs.
yeah, i agree that this year's hawks are nothing like the 2019 raps. the hawks hadn't made the playoffs since 16-17 when they got bounced in round 1 and they've averaged 20 something wins in the seasons since. the only other team i can think of in recent memory that compares to this hawks team is the 01-02 nets and even that nets team saw the addition of a superstar in kidd prior to the season. this hawks team didn't bring in any big name FAs or make any trades for a star
Gotta respect that Trae has that “unafraid of the moment, I’m gonna take over and keep shooting, miss or make” IT that few players have.
Hawks might as well forfeit Again, the number of injuries to the top guys is unreal this post season. Asterisk-ship.
no one talking about how lou williams just stepped into trae young's spot and the hawks looked basically the same. this is why i said it's less about young and more about how they built a team around a small dynamic scorer who can't defend anyone. it's a neat trick, and they've succeeded where others have failed in this regard.
Have to really give it up to Hawks for roster construction this year. The GM (finished 6th in voting.... should've been a little higher) really answered the postseason demand from ownership and put together a really well constructed team. Are they in this spot without injuries? Absolutely not. But I think this is probably the best roster they've put together in 6 years. I think this one even has more firepower, just not the veteran leadership that team had. And Nate is my vote for COY. I know he wasn't there for though of the season to qualify. But he turned an underachieving team to an overarching team. He's had them respond really well to adversity this post season. Without Trae, I thought they'd fold like a cheap chair. But they put a beating on the Bucks way before Giannis' injury. Now it's just a matter of how limited each superstar will be and if either can go the rest of this series. If neither can go, then it gets interesting. I might give the edge to the Hawks then. Nate is a better coach and the Hawks have the more complete team whereas the Bucks have the better team but it's built for Giannis. Can you imagine the low ratings for a Collins/Capella headliner vs. CP3 and Booker. There's no way that doesn't set a low viewership record.
i agree with most of this. the league claims viewership is up, right? that's weird to me, but i suppose there have been more tightly contested games? i think nate and bud are good reasons why people need to be more careful about rating coaches (related to the lue discussion going on elsewhere). bud has gone from hero to goat in two years, and nate's been hero, goat, and hero so many times as a head coach i can't keep count. there are very few guys who are great coaches in all circumstances, and those are the true greats. the rest are largely interchangeable, which is why you see a sort of musical chairs coaching game in the nba. the really bad ones get weeded out, and most of the rest are of similar competence. the "this guy is the best" stuff each year is tiresome. i think the fact that the coach of the year is often fired within a few years of receiving the award speaks volumes.
