Posted by newyorknewyork:
It wasn't a typo. It was just wrong info. My fault
But im pretty sure if you add a point and make it 3pt-4pt losses that 8 would jump up to a higher #s. I remember a lot of close games.
Its rough to really use these #s though to tell if they played hard or with effort or not. We could have been down by 15 the whole game and brought it to 4-2 within the last few mins. Or we could have been down by 4 basically the whole game and then the opponent raises the score to 10 or more pts the last few mins of the game. Then there is games that are competitive for 3 quarters and then a team takes over while the other team struggles.
So going by memory, I recall a ton of battles that yr which we basically lost every one. But I remember a lot of battles and tough losses that yr. Sure there were games where we didn't give it our all which happends with every team. But I don't remember us being anything close to being as effortless as last season. Losing streaks don't give you a good measurement of effort either. As 5 of those 7 losses could be hard fought games I just don't remember to well though I will admit.
When we went 2-16 which basically killed our season we also lost Jamal Crawford, Alan Houston, Kurt Thomas, Sweetney, Tim Thomas each for a stretch of time and im pretty sure im missing someone. We were an average team (without Houston who only played I think 9 games) who needed everything to go right to be a above average team. We were a team that was overmatched vs a lot of teams. We had inconsistant offensive perimeter players with not one defensive wing that could challenge the Pierce(s) of the world. Any guard with speed could get by Marbury any guard with size, speed, or power could get by Crawford. We had absolutly no depth at PG or SG with Houston & Penny both out. We had no size or athletism up front. Muhammad was solid, but inconsistant offensively and wasn't a great defender in the post either. Anyone with athletism would kill him & KT.
Every player that yr put up there career #s as a starter or better and we still only won 33games. We didn't have the defense, depth at guard, size or atheltism in the frontcourt. If we were healthier than we were that month. With Crawford not forcing Houston to play starter mins and implode and TT & KT not missing that time to go along with it. We probably win 40games that yr. Not great but slightly under the 45games we were all hopeing for. If everything went our way.
2 yrs ago we were an overmatched team who with some breaks could have gotten into the playoffs. But we didn't get them actually we got the opposite. Last yr with the addition of Curry, Frye, Lee, Nate, Richardson though we were still not well constructed we had enough fire power to get it done. But the players played effortless while Larry Brown acted like a jackass.
Thats my case to why I don't believe you could say that we played effortless 2 seasons in a row. But I understand that its all about the end results.17games was lost by 10, 13 by 15, 7 by 20, with a 7 game losing streak, and a 2-16month which is basically the 7 game losing streaks definatly does seem like they didn't play with effort. But I just don't remember it that way. I remember a ton of heart breakers
Yes we had some injuries, and yes we had some close games. But I'm not talking about the entire 33 win season as one entity cuz it was a season divided in two with a very defined line of demarkation: Marbury's "I'm the best" proclamation. We went 16-13 before it, (immediately preceded by a 3 game win streak - with Crawford on the bench) followed by a 2-16 plummet to launch a 17-36 finish. It was in the second half of the season where our will was sapped.
You can ignore that KT and TT hated playing with Marbury, but can you ignore it when Isiah's key advisor Brendan Suhr tells us we were selfish and passionless?
This group that we have this year is exceptional. At the end of the season, Isiah knew we needed to make significant changes. Not that we didn't like our people but we just knew we had to upgrade and we had to change the chemistry on the team, change the personality in the team, change the competitiveness in the team.
And we needed more players that would be able to say - be more excited about winning a game than doing anything individually.We had a little adversity. We had injuries, and turnover of players and coaches, but it was our poor chemistry and bad attitudes that gave rise to our inability to handle adversity. And we're still trying to address it. It's no coincidence that chemistry was isiah main theme in bringing in Jeffries. And not just on the court - remember Isiah spoke of him as being great in the locker room and on plane rides, etc.
And I've shown a million times how a primary hallmark of Marbury's career has been teams with poor chemistry who can't deal with adversity and all that improves when his negative leadership is replaced by positive leadership. But people always need to evidence that there was in fact adversity. We get it, it's the NBA, there's ALWAYS adversity.
