Exile on Waveland

Me too!

Campoli had two huge mistakes. The near whiff that led to a goal, then failing/trying to keep the puck in the zone that you mentioned. Not his best game, at all.

Yeah, as great as last night was, it pales in comparison to Game 5 against the Predators last year. I still believe that without Kane's shorthanded miracle goal, the Hawks lose the series to Nashville. Such an awful feeling thinking they'd lost (the series, in my mind) . . . to a goal with 13 seconds left and a win in OT . . . and later a Stanley Cup, of course.

Oh man . . . this is all I could hope for. Now you've got game seven against those guys and now Luongo (again, probably). . . Wow. Get a goal early please, and I think 2003 NLCS Game 7 was an apt comparison.

SHOOT THE PUCK

As hilarious as this is . . . I don't think it's a good thing.

Were you watching the same game I was? The Bulls had a ton of unforced turnovers. Dribbling the ball off their feet. Failing to catch passes that proceeded to bounce into the hands of Pacers. The Pacers defense forced TO's, no doubt. But all series the Bulls have just been sloppy with the ball. And it's not like that's something new...it's been something that they've done before, just never for a stretch of 3 games like this. I swear, we could probably reduce or turnovers by half if we could teach our bigs to catch a pass. The Bulls only had 15 turnovers last night (.8 over their season average). 3 of those were charging fouls and another one was a 3 second violation. The Pacers had several steals that just came from stepping into the passing lanes or overplaying guys so I don't think there could have that many left that were unforced. I do remember one stretch during the game where there was some sloppy handling of the ball by the Bulls (near the end of the first beginning of the second if I remember correctly) but it didn't really lead to turnovers. It kept squirting out right back to another Bull. so, that leaves 11 turnovers essentially to split between forced and unforced. you said that you didn't see any unforced errors so you're asserting that all 11 were stolen straight-up. No, I said that I specifically remember several were caused by the Pacers. There almost certainly were a few that were relatively unforced in the game. I'd have to see each play individually again to know for sure. It could be the definition of forced/unforced is different too. For example, there was a play where Rose was doubleteamed up top. Deng was open in the corner and started to cut baseline so that there would be a good passing angle for an open layup. Rose threw a good pass but a Pacer rotated over quickly from the other side, cut in front of Deng, and the pass went right to him instead. Is that a forced or an unforced turnover? I guess it might depend on which side you're on. If you're on one side, it was a good defensive play by the Pacers. If you're on the other side, the refs are biased because the Pacer player fouled when intercepting the pass and should be suspended, if not expelled from the NBA.

Not getting my hopes up. Too big of a hill to climb. Vancouver will win the next game. However, you win a home game and it's game seven with all the pressure on that team . . .?

YES YES YES

Squeaky bum time for Luongo . . .?

Jeff Newton . . . who was not a stiff at all (technically, he wasn't a starter, as that was Jared Odle, nor a center). Newton was first team all-Big Ten the following season. Indiana's frontcourt was excellent in both 2000-01 and 2001-02.

Well, if an eight-seed nearly winning two road games against a 62-win, top-seed team isn't impressive, then that 62-win, top-seeded team must be really, really overrated.

Ha, yeah. I'm in the 100's (middle level) which is the worst I've sat in years. Usually get lower level or suite seats for free from friends that work at the big firms here. Oh well, whatever. Never seen an NBA playoff game, so I'm excited. Way worse than my Colts playoff tickets this year --second row -- though I'm hoping for a better result.

Got a ticket to tonight's game (a pretty good one, too). Should be able to watch and walk home in time to see the Hawks game.

Bickell! Woah!

I don't find it coincidental that something else changed after 2006.

It does seem likely that the NBA would favor the small market team with no stars over the big market team with a star.

Just doing a bracketology at this point indicates as such. In his bracketology at this time in 2004, he had IU as No. 4 seed. They had no frontcourt (almost literally), were coached by Mike Davis, and finished 14-15.

Breaking news, Joe Lunardi is on crack: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

He was also 3-9 from inside 15 feet. Inside 15 feet, the Bulls were contesting shots more closely, and Noah/Thomas/Gibson/Asik (for a minute) were getting involved. 15-23 feet shots were mostly on Boozer only. Well you can't explain away his good shooting by saying he's just not good enough, then explain away his bad shooting by giving credit to the defense. I'm relatively sure Hansbrough's been defended throughout his career inside 15 feet, not just this past game. Considering the Thibodeau defensive strategy is lock down the paint, defend the 3, and allow long range jumpers (which I'm sure you're quite familiar with, watching the Celtics the past few years), the shot distribution is very in-line with what the defense typically allows, but Indiana was simply making their long-range jumpers at an unsustainable rate. Sure, I don't think anyone is arguing against that. But you demagouged the issue by saying Hansbrough wouldn't hit those shots in an empty gym in practice. That's absurd.

On average, NBA teams historically make about 75% of their free throws. That is a 15-foot shot from straight on, no contesting, and every player in the league shoots and practices them constantly. The best shooters in the NBA make 3's at about a 60% clip in the 3-point shootout (that's just the average make % of the winners, it's much lower if you average all contestants). Again, that's unguarded, spot up shots from the 5 highest percentage spots behind the line, and only counting the best shooter in the NBA each year. The average NBA player does not make 70%+ of their 15-23 foot shots in an open gym. Tyler Hansbrough is an above-average jump-shooter, and he hit 43% of his long twos this year, making under 2 per game. He is not going to continue to hit 7+ long range shots a game, even if Boozer is playing off to prevent him from getting actual high percentage shots. Free throws are shot in a game, with 15,000+ people watching in the arena, many more on TV, and with some added pressure of wanting to help your team (and, cynically, your paycheck). Free throws are ABSOLUTELY more difficult shots than open jumpers in an empty gym. Same with the 3-point contest. It's simply not comparable at all. Honestly, I can't tell if you're serious or not. Having played some with average NBA players (and seen more shooting around), I believe you could not be more wrong. Those guys knock down long 3-point jumpers like they're nothing. So do good college players. In empty gyms, they ostensibly don't miss.

Career stats for Hansbrough aren't gonna tell you much. He's basically a rookie due to his vertigo last year and had very inconsistent rotation minutes/buried on the bench until JOB got fired. His midrange jumper since he started playing under Vogel has easily been his most improved attribute, and made him basically the most viable pick n roll threat to pair with Collison. When his jumper gets going he's a damn good player and Boozer can only watch hopelessly as Hansbrough utterly devours his life soul. I initially posted career numbers, but changed it to his numbers for the year. Hansbrough doesn't hit 70% of his long jumpers in an open gym, so I don't expect the rate to continue. 43% of long jumpers is average to above average for an NBA player. The Bulls defense is designed around locking down the paint, playing off to allow long 2's, and limiting 3's. The Pacers hit some open 3's in the first half, but Granger was hitting some silly shots in the 3rd, and Hansbrough was hitting shots at a clip he couldn't maintain in an empty gym. I doubt Indiana will have that type of offensive performance from long range again this series. You're seriously underestimating Hansbrough and NBA players in general. Almost every played in the NBA would hit 70% of "long" 2-point jumpers in an open gym. Those guys are really, really good -- even the non-shooters. Now, I doubt Hansbrough hits seven of 10 again this series, but it's not like most of his shots were really contested. The Bulls are still going to win this series in five or four games, and will likely win by a whole lot tonight. However, the Pacers are better than some have given them credit for -- they were above .500 and Vogel. I also think the Bulls are a bit of a "regular season team," as they're going to struggle against better teams as they advance because they have literally one player that can get his own shot (he's a stud, no doubt, but as you advance, other teams have studs too).

I think Leddy can play as well, we haven't seen much of or from Morin but, he's only 20. While frustrating the Hawks will be strong contenders for the Cup in years to come. Yeah, if nothing else, I think they got Crawford, Smith, and Leddy out of this season.

You're not seriously including me in that "you guys" are you? I don't need excuses for why my team is going to lose -- they're just not very good.

WCIU? Ugh.