And he put some insane numbers Nikola Jokic went for 35 points, 22 rebounds and 17 assists in his 20th triple-double of the season. They are 9-1 in last 10 games.
when they have their top 5 guys, they're still obviously really good. but if they're missing even one, things get dicey and even jokic struggles a bit to plug all the holes.
Did you get to see much of gangly white guy weirdo Bill Walton? He could dish like a muthuh. Never a great scorer, though. Joker is on some whole Other Level.
Those numbers are indeed INSANE. Shows up for work with a lunchpail, ready to get jit done, and he does. He's a pro through and through, but he seems exasperated a lot of the time on the court: others are not up to speed with him and he suffers. Good thing he cultivated his sense of humor, which one of my all-time faves already in NBA history.
yeah, i'm not quite old enough to have seen much of bill, but my dad says he was incredible for the brief time he was healthy. but yeah, not a scorer. jokic's touch at his size is unheard of. not even the elder sabonis was like this in that regard. so we've seen passing big men like him (maybe not quite like him, but similar enough), but ones that also could score like this. i guess wilt technically qualifies, but he wasn't also a shooter from distance, nor do i think he's thought of as someone who was a crafty passer (just an effective one).
I generally like that idea. The only downside is records will be that much more difficult to break, but I couldn't really care less about it either way. The question is, would that actually lead to a lower burden for the players. In a 40 min game, you can still play your guys pretty much as long as nowadays (looking at you Thibs). If it doesn't have this result, then it really doesn't change much IMO.
Someone please help me out … how does shortening the game (not a fan of personally) improve the problem of the games being too much 3 pt shooting?
I don't think it is this problem they want to solve. I would assume it's the burden on players / amount of injuries etc., maybe the length of games as such?
Won't happen. It will affect the bottom line too much. Shorter game = fewer commercials = less ad revenue.
feel like they've already weighed this, and there's something about the structure of ad deals and/or the way people watch games now that ameliorates the concern? i just find it funny that of many potential fixes for various problems, this is the one the commissioner is willing to put out there publicly as an option.
Maybe. There's 2,460 NBA regular season games played per season. There's variables: blackouts, nationally televised ones without local coverage, play-in. But still... even if there's only a timeout in 1/3 of those games during that span, i don't know how that's covered. he knows it's a problem. There's no solution. He's spitballing, while acknowledging of their awareness.
yeah, a lot of ink is spilled about wasting years of stars' lives (here and elsewhere), but i think SA's clock should be ticking loudly right now. this guy is ready NOW. the window is open, and you're in 12th place. if you can get the fox thing done, get it done asap.
spurs can't keep winning the lotto, right? just...probability and statistics say no? only thing i can think of is that they feel like they'll be able to nab a better star than fox and do so soon. and maybe they can. but this wouldn't be like the mavs trading for porzingis for luka--fox is a more proven player (and much healthier) than zinger was.
