NewStats: 3,261,160 , 8,173,231 topics. Date: Wednesday, 28 May 2025 at 11:48 AM 30735g

This has been a really funny season.

Sixers 2-14 with Embiid and PG

Timberwolves I knew those ones were cooked when they added Randle and Antman decided to be a professional 3pt spammer

Ime Udoka working magic with the Rockets. The guy is really special

Lakers. I'm not convinced they're any different from the Darvin Ham era, everytime they face a quality team they get blasted. Darvin Ham was just a convenient scapegoat

Wemby is coming.

Skrrrrrrr:
Is this reality staring the warriors in the face?

You were being harsh on the Warriors. The Nets just beat the Suns and their big 3

Someone needs to remind Anthony Edwards that he hasn’t won anything. I feel like he has allowed the noise about his abilities to distract him. He has regressed this season with his overall play. ANT needs to refocus because he is losing the respect of his team mates and the fans are now booing.

Khanben:



Last year Celtics is beating all of the above save the Warriors. In a series the longest any of it will last is 5 games

I know you love to troll, chill na, allow for thanksgiving abeg

Roland17:
Someone needs to remind Anthony Edwards that he hasn’t won anything. I feel like he has allowed the noise about his abilities to distract him. He has regressed this season with his overall play. ANT needs to refocus because he is losing the respect of his team mates and the fans are now booing.

ol boy, I was worried about this. You have to be mentally tough to be a superstar in this league. But you have to 2x tougher than that to stay a superstar. I was waiting to see how he would handle that playoff fame. At first he tried to form humble, but it appears the MJ comparisons got in his head.

Hopefully some vet shakes it out of his head. But hard to do these days, with all that money and access and a legion of fake fans on social media. It is very hard to be grounded. See how long it has taken Harden to even start to look like his Rockets version. And too late imo, as age has caught up with him

Go pack go!

birdman:


ol boy, I was worried about this. You have to be mentally tough to be a superstar in this league. But you have to 2x tougher than that to stay a superstar. I was waiting to see how he would handle that playoff fame. At first he tried to form humble, but it appears the MJ comparisons got in his head.

Hopefully some vet shakes it out of his head. But hard to do these days, with all that money and access and a legion of fake fans on social media. It is very hard to be grounded. See how long it has taken Harden to even start to look like his Rockets version. And too late imo, as age has caught up with him

You make an excellent point about being mentally tougher to stay at the top. Truth is, ANT no longer presents to me like someone who would listen or thinks he should. During this bad start, he has blamed everyone but himself! His game still needs some finesse otherwise he would just be a rich man’s Westbrook.

Speaking about vets, one thing I like about Kobe’s generation of vets is that they stay in their lane for the most part. ANT already rubbed a lot of them the wrong way when he said generation before were not skilled.

Just within the Wolves organization alone you have the likes of S. Mitchell (I love his takes on NBA SiriusXM), S. Cassell and KG who can help but those guys dey respect themselves.

Roland17:


You make an excellent point about being mentally tougher to stay at the top. Truth is, ANT no longer presents to me like someone who would listen or thinks he should. During this bad start, he has blamed everyone but himself! His game still needs some finesse otherwise he would just be a rich man’s Westbrook.

This would be sad, cuz I really like the guy. If you are going to lead a locker room, and you are one of the younger players, your leadership skills have to be on point. Calling vets kids is guaranteed to not get you the results you looking for

What a game.....

#ThunderUp

birdman:


I know you love to troll, chill na, allow for thanksgiving abeg

I don't troll anything. I have a genuine question, all those who love claiming the 90s were so great, please when was the last time people actually went back and watched a whole game not highlights? I recently finished watching the bulls first championship finals and the one they beat the Suns and the basketball was for a better word primitive.
None of the teams listed apart from GSW would be able to guard a 5 out offense because they've never seen it, the Bulls and Lakers would implement a triangle offense would be so easy for the Celticsto defend. MJ and Co would face defensive schemes they never saw in their time playing. They would have to face more than two defensive looks in a basketball game.
The Celtics would have open look, after open look on the perimeter,because teams never switched in those days and they all thought 3s were bad shots, so they would not defend it.

PS: Unless this is one of those discussions were we are magically adding skillsets that none of these players had in their playing days to make sure that they can adapt to modern basketball. If these OGs play the way they played in their days, then I am sorry none of those series go beyond 5.

Roland17:
Someone needs to remind Anthony Edwards that he hasn’t won anything. I feel like he has allowed the noise about his abilities to distract him. He has regressed this season with his overall play. ANT needs to refocus because he is losing the respect of his team mates and the fans are now booing.

The signs were visible last season. He started feeling himself with all them antics. A few seasons in NBA wilderness will humble him a bit.

They're sub .500 now with a non contender team. Lessons will be learned

Khanben:



Last year Celtics is beating all of the above save the Warriors. In a series the longest any of it will last is 5 games

This is big jokes

There's nothing last year's Celtics does at an elite clip besides spam 50 3s a night. Quit criminally overrating this era of ball. There's no Luka or Kyrie on MJs Bulls that you could relentlessly hunt

It will be a matter of a glorified 3pt contest in today's rules. Best case scenario. And if Antman and Tatum can spam 3s what makes you think MJ wouldn't?

No way you man's are gassing the team that lost to Jimmy Butler and Caleb Martin. (and before you mention Jrue Holiday, I'd remind you he was on the team Jimmy beat in 5)

Two bad shooting nights and they're toast.

Have the Lakers beat an actual good and healthy team this year.

The way SGA roasted them. Boy oh boy

Roland17:
Someone needs to remind Anthony Edwards that he hasn’t won anything. I feel like he has allowed the noise about his abilities to distract him. He has regressed this season with his overall play. ANT needs to refocus because he is losing the respect of his team mates and the fans are now booing.

This I believe is the beginning of his undoing. He is still young and immature to appreciate this. The Olympics was good for him because he learnt from the greats. He was not the focus, everyone knows that. He knows that too. But this, came too soon.

A40:
This is big jokes

There's nothing last year's Celtics does at an elite clip besides spam 50 3s a night. Quit criminally overrating this era of ball. There's no Luka or Kyrie on MJs Bulls that you could relentlessly hunt

It will be a matter of a glorified 3pt contest in today's rules. Best case scenario. And if Antman and Tatum can spam 3s what makes you think MJ wouldn't?

No way you man's are gassing the team that lost to Jimmy Butler and Caleb Martin. (and before you mention Jrue Holiday, I'd remind you he was on the team Jimmy beat in 5)

Two bad shooting nights and they're toast.

I thought MJ was the perfect player and the way he played is the most effective and efficient way to win. If so, why does he need to shoot 3s.
Or are you itting that spamming 3s as you call it will beat the long 2s barrage of the 90s anyday anytime.

Khanben:


I thought MJ was the perfect player and the way he played is the most effective and efficient way to win. If so, why does he need to shoot 3s.
Or are you itting that spamming 3s as you call it will beat the long 2s barrage of the 90s anyday anytime.

You do realize he has the t record for most 3s in a half in the NBA Finals right?

Anyway I don't know how you came to such wack conclusions that I itted anything. Did the Nuggets, Bucks, Lakers need to spam 3s to win a title? The Nuggets were 2-0 against them in the regular season. Did they spam 3s

The Bulls will only need to shoot enough. As any logical person would understand

Khanben:


I thought MJ was the perfect player and the way he played is the most effective and efficient way to win. If so, why does he need to shoot 3s.
Or are you itting that spamming 3s as you call it will beat the long 2s barrage of the 90s anyday anytime.

You do realize he has the t record for most 3s in a half in the NBA Finals right?

Anyway I don't know how you came to such wack conclusions that I itted anything. Did the Nuggets, Bucks, Lakers need to spam 3s to win a title?

Even The Nuggets were 2-0 against them in the regular season last year. Did they spam 3s

The Bulls will only need to shoot enough. As any logical person would understand

Abifoluwa, how are you doing? The boys miss you. Please respond when you see this.

A40:
You do realize he has the t record for most 3s in a half in the NBA Finals right?

Anyway I don't know how you came to such wack conclusions that I itted anything. Did the Nuggets, Bucks, Lakers need to spam 3s to win a title?

Even The Nuggets were 2-0 against them in the regular season last year. Did they spam 3s

The Bulls will only need to shoot enough. As any logical person would understand

All of the teams you claimed didn't spam 3s, all attempted over 30 3PA in the playoffs during the year they won.

Khanben:


All of the teams you claimed didn't spam 3s, all attempted over 30 3PA in the playoffs during the year they won.

Bucks and Nuggets averaged 27 3s or less in the Finals.

So you're telling half truths at best

A40:
Bucks and Nuggets averaged 27 3s or less in the Finals.

So you're telling half truths at best

I used playoffs. Maybe you should read exactly what I wrote.
As for half-truths, only Denver shot less than 30 3s in the finals , the Bucks shot a total of 187 in 6 games, that is over 30 attempts per game.

I think LeBron has it at the back of his mind that he's going to retire after this season. And that is already affecting his game somewhat. 4 of 16 shooting is just not something we attribute to LeBron. So many bad games already this season, and it's not even Christmas yet. I think he's missed he's last 24 three pointers or something. Baba, do and retire. You've earned it.

Khanben:


I used playoffs. Maybe you should read exactly what I wrote.
As for half-truths, only Denver shot less than 30 3s in the finals , the Bucks shot a total of 187 in 6 games, that is over 30 attempts per game.

Finals is not part of playoffs?

This is very funny. My point still stands. We had a team that won attempting fewer than 30 3s.

All in all quit hyping that Celtics team and committing basketball blasphemy. Any team that can lose to Jimmy Butler and Caleb Martin is far from unbeatable

Are the Lakers seriously wailing about the shooting slump of a soon to be 40 year old? These jokes write themselves.

greypencils:
Bring back handchecking and elite defence. Everyone is healthy and in their prime doing what they do best. Who wins?

I asked chat GPT
Bring back handchecking and elite defence. Everyone is healthy and in their prime doing what they do best. Which of these 4 teams win?
1996 Chicago bulls
2019 golden state warriors
2000 Lakers
1982 lakers

The response

This is a great hypothetical matchup between four legendary teams from different eras of basketball. Let's break it down, keeping the assumption that every player is healthy and in their prime:

1. 1996 Chicago Bulls

Key Players: Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Ron Harper, Steve Kerr

Strengths: The 1996 Bulls are often regarded as one of the best defensive teams ever, with an elite perimeter defense led by Jordan and Pippen, plus the rebounding and defense of Dennis Rodman. Jordan was at his peak as an all-around player, capable of scoring, defending, and leading in clutch moments.

Weaknesses: Though the Bulls had good shooting, they weren't as prolific from three-point range compared to modern teams like the Warriors.


2. 2019 Golden State Warriors

Key Players: Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, Kevin Durant, Draymond Green, Andre Iguodala

Strengths: Offensively, the 2019 Warriors are nearly unbeatable, especially with their three-point shooting prowess and the spacing provided by Curry, Klay, and Durant. They have a dynamic offensive system with movement, shooting, and ball handling. Draymond Green is an elite defender and playmaker, while Iguodala brings a lot of defensive versatility.

Weaknesses: Their defense isn't as physical as some of the other teams here, and without a true center (although they had Kevon Looney), they might struggle in a more physical, inside-heavy matchup.


3. 2000 Los Angeles Lakers

Key Players: Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, Rick Fox, Robert Horry

Strengths: Shaq is the most dominant inside presence in NBA history. His ability to dominate the paint on both ends (scoring, rebounding, and blocking shots) is unmatched. Kobe, in his prime, was an elite scorer and defender, while the Lakers also had good complementary players like Rick Fox, Robert Horry, and an excellent coach in Phil Jackson.

Weaknesses: The Lakers' offense could be more predictable, especially relying on Shaq's post game. Against teams with multiple offensive weapons, the Lakers might have to rely more on individual brilliance from Kobe.


4. 1982 Los Angeles Lakers

Key Players: Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy, Norm Nixon

Strengths: The "Showtime" Lakers were an offensive juggernaut, known for fast breaks, ball movement, and elite basketball IQ. Magic Johnson was the best point guard of his era, capable of leading a fast-paced offense with precision. Kareem's skyhook was unstoppable, and Worthy was a perfect wing to run with the fast break. This team was also quite strong defensively, with great individual defenders in Magic and Kareem, plus a strong team-oriented defense.

Weaknesses: Their three-point shooting was non-existent, and their defense, while solid, wasn't as elite as some of the other teams here. Against physical teams, their lack of size (outside of Kareem) and overall toughness might hurt them.


Matchup Breakdown:

Bulls vs. Warriors: This matchup would be fascinating. The Bulls' defense would be critical in slowing down the Warriors' high-powered offense. Jordan and Pippen would be tasked with slowing down Curry and Klay, while Rodman could give Durant a tough time on the boards. The Warriors, however, would likely have an advantage in spacing, with their superior shooting. But in a slowed-down, physical game, the Bulls' defense could disrupt the Warriors' offensive flow. The key would be if the Bulls could handle Curry's shooting and the Warriors' movement.

Bulls vs. Lakers (2000): The Bulls would have to deal with Shaq's dominance inside, but their defense and length with Pippen and Rodman could provide some resistance. Jordan and Kobe would be a thrilling matchup, but Jordan has the edge in this head-to-head, and the Bulls would have a better ing cast overall. In this matchup, the Bulls' defense and overall depth would likely win out.

Warriors vs. Lakers (2000): This would be a fascinating offensive battle between the Warriors' perimeter shooting and the Lakers' inside dominance. Shaq would be a huge problem for the Warriors' smaller lineup, but the Warriors' spacing could give them some breathing room. Kobe would have to deal with Klay and Durant defensively, while Draymond would try to limit Shaq's impact. If the Warriors could stretch the floor and keep Shaq out of the paint, they might outpace the Lakers, but the Lakers' interior dominance could still be overwhelming in a seven-game series.

Warriors vs. Lakers (1982): The Warriors' shooting would test the Lakers' defense, but Kareem’s post presence and Magic’s ability to create offense would be a challenge for the Warriors' defense. In a more fast-paced game, the Warriors' shooting could give them an edge, but Kareem's dominance in the post and Magic's playmaking could be a lot for the Warriors to handle.


Prediction:

The 1996 Chicago Bulls are likely the favorites in this matchup. Their ability to play elite defense against both the Warriors' shooters and the Lakers' interior dominance, along with the leadership of Jordan and Pippen, would give them the edge. In a slower, more physical game with handchecking allowed, the Bulls' defensive prowess and mental toughness would likely win out over these other teams.

greypencils:

I asked chat GPT
Bring back handchecking and elite defence. Everyone is healthy and in their prime doing what they do best. Which of these 4 teams win?
1996 Chicago bulls
2019 golden state warriors
2000 Lakers
1982 lakers

The response

This is a great hypothetical matchup between four legendary teams from different eras of basketball. Let's break it down, keeping the assumption that every player is healthy and in their prime:

1. 1996 Chicago Bulls

Key Players: Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Ron Harper, Steve Kerr

Strengths: The 1996 Bulls are often regarded as one of the best defensive teams ever, with an elite perimeter defense led by Jordan and Pippen, plus the rebounding and defense of Dennis Rodman. Jordan was at his peak as an all-around player, capable of scoring, defending, and leading in clutch moments.

Weaknesses: Though the Bulls had good shooting, they weren't as prolific from three-point range compared to modern teams like the Warriors.


2. 2019 Golden State Warriors

Key Players: Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, Kevin Durant, Draymond Green, Andre Iguodala

Strengths: Offensively, the 2019 Warriors are nearly unbeatable, especially with their three-point shooting prowess and the spacing provided by Curry, Klay, and Durant. They have a dynamic offensive system with movement, shooting, and ball handling. Draymond Green is an elite defender and playmaker, while Iguodala brings a lot of defensive versatility.

Weaknesses: Their defense isn't as physical as some of the other teams here, and without a true center (although they had Kevon Looney), they might struggle in a more physical, inside-heavy matchup.


3. 2000 Los Angeles Lakers

Key Players: Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, Rick Fox, Robert Horry

Strengths: Shaq is the most dominant inside presence in NBA history. His ability to dominate the paint on both ends (scoring, rebounding, and blocking shots) is unmatched. Kobe, in his prime, was an elite scorer and defender, while the Lakers also had good complementary players like Rick Fox, Robert Horry, and an excellent coach in Phil Jackson.

Weaknesses: The Lakers' offense could be more predictable, especially relying on Shaq's post game. Against teams with multiple offensive weapons, the Lakers might have to rely more on individual brilliance from Kobe.


4. 1982 Los Angeles Lakers

Key Players: Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy, Norm Nixon

Strengths: The "Showtime" Lakers were an offensive juggernaut, known for fast breaks, ball movement, and elite basketball IQ. Magic Johnson was the best point guard of his era, capable of leading a fast-paced offense with precision. Kareem's skyhook was unstoppable, and Worthy was a perfect wing to run with the fast break. This team was also quite strong defensively, with great individual defenders in Magic and Kareem, plus a strong team-oriented defense.

Weaknesses: Their three-point shooting was non-existent, and their defense, while solid, wasn't as elite as some of the other teams here. Against physical teams, their lack of size (outside of Kareem) and overall toughness might hurt them.


Matchup Breakdown:

Bulls vs. Warriors: This matchup would be fascinating. The Bulls' defense would be critical in slowing down the Warriors' high-powered offense. Jordan and Pippen would be tasked with slowing down Curry and Klay, while Rodman could give Durant a tough time on the boards. The Warriors, however, would likely have an advantage in spacing, with their superior shooting. But in a slowed-down, physical game, the Bulls' defense could disrupt the Warriors' offensive flow. The key would be if the Bulls could handle Curry's shooting and the Warriors' movement.

Bulls vs. Lakers (2000): The Bulls would have to deal with Shaq's dominance inside, but their defense and length with Pippen and Rodman could provide some resistance. Jordan and Kobe would be a thrilling matchup, but Jordan has the edge in this head-to-head, and the Bulls would have a better ing cast overall. In this matchup, the Bulls' defense and overall depth would likely win out.

Warriors vs. Lakers (2000): This would be a fascinating offensive battle between the Warriors' perimeter shooting and the Lakers' inside dominance. Shaq would be a huge problem for the Warriors' smaller lineup, but the Warriors' spacing could give them some breathing room. Kobe would have to deal with Klay and Durant defensively, while Draymond would try to limit Shaq's impact. If the Warriors could stretch the floor and keep Shaq out of the paint, they might outpace the Lakers, but the Lakers' interior dominance could still be overwhelming in a seven-game series.

Warriors vs. Lakers (1982): The Warriors' shooting would test the Lakers' defense, but Kareem’s post presence and Magic’s ability to create offense would be a challenge for the Warriors' defense. In a more fast-paced game, the Warriors' shooting could give them an edge, but Kareem's dominance in the post and Magic's playmaking could be a lot for the Warriors to handle.


Prediction:

The 1996 Chicago Bulls are likely the favorites in this matchup. Their ability to play elite defense against both the Warriors' shooters and the Lakers' interior dominance, along with the leadership of Jordan and Pippen, would give them the edge. In a slower, more physical game with handchecking allowed, the Bulls' defensive prowess and mental toughness would likely win out over these other teams.

For those who would still GSW dominating the oldies and winning these teams, it took 7 games and an injury to 3 to defeat James Harden, 3, Clint Capella, PJ Tucker & Trevor Ariza. I rest my case.

Another prompt for chatGPT

Which player had a better chance to thrive, Steph Curry in 2000 76ers roster and Allen Iverson in GSW 2016 roster

Response

To compare which player—Stephen Curry in the 2000 Philadelphia 76ers roster or Allen Iverson in the 2016 Golden State Warriors roster—had a better chance to thrive, we need to evaluate the key aspects of each situation:

1. 2000 Philadelphia 76ers Roster (for Curry):

Team Dynamics: The 2000 76ers were not a powerhouse; they were still developing, and while Iverson was emerging as the team's star, the roster was largely underwhelming. Key players included Iverson, Theo Ratliff, and Eric Snow, but it was a team that relied heavily on Iverson's scoring.

Style of Play: The team played with less emphasis on spacing or three-point shooting. Curry, known for his shooting, would have found a limited role, especially early in his career, as the system was not built for him.

2. 2016 Golden State Warriors Roster (for Iverson):

Team Dynamics: The 2016 Warriors were an all-time great team, coming off a 73-win regular season, with a dynamic offense centered around Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green. They had great spacing, playmaking, and ball movement.

Style of Play: The Warriors' system would have suited Iverson's playing style much more than the 2000 76ers' system suited Curry. Golden State's "small-ball" offense, with pick-and-roll actions, pace, and floor spacing, could have created opportunities for Iverson to exploit defenders in one-on-one situations. His scoring and aggressive driving could have complemented the Warriors' ball movement and shooting.

Conclusion: Allen Iverson on the 2016 Warriors. The system, talent, and environment would have maximized Iverson's strengths, giving him a much better opportunity to thrive compared to Curry in the 2000 76ers setup.

greypencils:
Another prompt for chatGPT

Which player had a better chance to thrive, Steph Curry in 2000 76ers roster and Allen Iverson in GSW 2016 roster

Response

To compare which player—Stephen Curry in the 2000 Philadelphia 76ers roster or Allen Iverson in the 2016 Golden State Warriors roster—had a better chance to thrive, we need to evaluate the key aspects of each situation:

1. 2000 Philadelphia 76ers Roster (for Curry):

Team Dynamics: The 2000 76ers were not a powerhouse; they were still developing, and while Iverson was emerging as the team's star, the roster was largely underwhelming. Key players included Iverson, Theo Ratliff, and Eric Snow, but it was a team that relied heavily on Iverson's scoring.

Style of Play: The team played with less emphasis on spacing or three-point shooting. Curry, known for his shooting, would have found a limited role, especially early in his career, as the system was not built for him.

2. 2016 Golden State Warriors Roster (for Iverson):

Team Dynamics: The 2016 Warriors were an all-time great team, coming off a 73-win regular season, with a dynamic offense centered around Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green. They had great spacing, playmaking, and ball movement.

Style of Play: The Warriors' system would have suited Iverson's playing style much more than the 2000 76ers' system suited Curry. Golden State's "small-ball" offense, with pick-and-roll actions, pace, and floor spacing, could have created opportunities for Iverson to exploit defenders in one-on-one situations. His scoring and aggressive driving could have complemented the Warriors' ball movement and shooting.

Conclusion: Allen Iverson on the 2016 Warriors. The system, talent, and environment would have maximized Iverson's strengths, giving him a much better opportunity to thrive compared to Curry in the 2000 76ers setup.

This is for all Curry fan boys. I choose Iverson over Curry, anytime of the day. Think of the amount of energy put into defence and how it affects the offence. Through it, A.I has 4 scoring titles, 3 steal titles. Even with all the 3s, Your boy has 2 scoring titles, 1 steal title. Pray! Who is the better player?

@ greypencils, did you touch a live wire or sth? Do you need a second shock to reboot?


Your boy Iverson is so efficient that Curry at the 3 is just as efficient. Do you even know what this means?

https://x.com/Jacobtheclipper/status/1863348210049200575?s=19

For people that go on and on about this era and how great and skilled they are.

I keep telling y'all. Nothing complex, nothing special about this era of Hoops. 3pt spamming is the only thing they do at a high clip

On a bad shooting night these "skills" are next to useless

A40:
https://x.com/Jacobtheclipper/status/1863348210049200575?s=19

For people that go on and on about this era and how great and skilled they are.

I keep telling y'all. Nothing complex, nothing special about this era of Hoops. 3pt spamming is the only thing they do at a high clip

On a bad shooting night these "skills" are next to useless

Totally disgusting. Imagine losing sleep to watch this. I don't bother to watch these games anymore till the playoffs. When I say I love Iverson, it is simply because of his crossovers. Give me crossovers and And1s. Is that too much to ask?

greypencils:
Totally disgusting. Imagine losing sleep to watch this. I don't bother to watch these games anymore till the playoffs. When I say I love Iverson, it is simply because of his crossovers. Give me crossovers and And1s. Is that too much to ask?

There's no player with unique style or skillset. You're basically watching 3pt spamming clones

Even Antman that was supposed to be different has been infected by the bug, Wemby is now a 3pt spammer. Someone that was supposed to be the unicorn

SGA really the only perimeter player that is growing on me with his style of play these days.

No wonder their ratings keep dropping like stone