2025-2026 NBA Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter duluoz
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 687
  • Views: 22K
  • Sports 
Oof Cade Cunningham looks like he's going to fall just short of a triple double: 27 points, 9 assists, 9 TOs. Not exactly the trip-doub one would want
 
Seven players played less than 10 minutes. The other six combined for 3 points. So I would indeed differentiate between Bronny's 5 points in 9 minutes from, say, Ja'Sean Tate's 1 point (on 1-2 FTs) in 4 minutes. Or Aaron Holidays' 0 points and 1 TO in 6 minutes.
Tate had 1 point in 4 minutes, that's 2.3 points in 9 minutes...not a major difference.

Bronny did well in his limited time, but it's hard to argue that his contribution was "meaningful" outside of the fact that it was a close game and everyone's input into the game - good or bad - helped decide the outcome.
 
Tate had 1 point in 4 minutes, that's 2.3 points in 9 minutes...not a major difference.

Bronny did well in his limited time, but it's hard to argue that his contribution was "meaningful" outside of the fact that it was a close game and everyone's input into the game - good or bad - helped decide the outcome.
No, no. you don't get to normalize minutes. That's part of what "meaningful" would mean. If you prorate to more MP, then you could say, "well Bronny would have scored 20 points in 36 minutes and that sure as hell is meaningful."
 
I was referring to the shadow being cast.
Sorry. My bad. Having a father like his can give some the impression that he’s where he is because of his father. While others will he’s a disappointment because he doesn’t come close to being the kind of player his father was.
Michael Douglas said he always felt the burden of being Kirk Douglas’ son. He felt a lot of people believed he had gotten where he was because of his father and that his talents were overlooked.
I guess what I’m trying to say is living up to the standards set by a parent can make things difficult for a child.
 
No, no. you don't get to normalize minutes. That's part of what "meaningful" would mean. If you prorate to more MP, then you could say, "well Bronny would have scored 20 points in 36 minutes and that sure as hell is meaningful."
Yes, no one who understands basketball stats would ever normalize minutes.

Judge Judy Eye Roll GIF
 
Yes, no one who understands basketball stats would ever normalize minutes.

Judge Judy Eye Roll GIF
The question isn't how good he was, it's whether he made a meaningful contribution. A meaningful contribution is defined, in large measure, by minutes played. Normalizing that blows up the entire concept.
 
The question isn't how good he was, it's whether he made a meaningful contribution. A meaningful contribution is defined, in large measure, by minutes played. Normalizing that blows up the entire concept.
5 points isn't a meaningful contribution except for the fact the game was close. Neither was anyone else's contributions who played less than 10 minutes or scored under 10 points.

(Although I'll pull back my comment that Tate was just as meaningful as I was thinking Bronny scored 3 points instead of 5. So Bronny was actually less meaningless than Tate.)
 
5 points isn't a meaningful contribution except for the fact the game was close. Neither was anyone else's contributions who played less than 10 minutes or scored under 10 points.
Well, that's a line drawing problem. It just depends on what you mean by meaningful. I was pushing back at the idea that if Bronny's contribution was meaningful, so would everyone else's.

It's clear to me that Bronny's contributions were more meaningful than several players who played in the game. Whether you want to call that "meaningful" in an overall sense is personal preference, I think.

Still, 9 minutes in a very close playoff game, plus 5 points, is way better than a lot of people were prognosticating for him.
 
5 points isn't a meaningful contribution except for the fact the game was close. Neither was anyone else's contributions who played less than 10 minutes or scored under 10 points.

(Although I'll pull back my comment that Tate was just as meaningful as I was thinking Bronny scored 3 points instead of 5. So Bronny was actually less meaningless than Tate.)
I think meaningful contribution can mean making a positive contribution during a meaningful point of the game. Typically, Bronny is a DNP or only plays in blowouts. But due to injuries, he is now making positive contributions during meaningful parts of the game.
 
Well, that's a line drawing problem. It just depends on what you mean by meaningful. I was pushing back at the idea that if Bronny's contribution was meaningful, so would everyone else's.

It's clear to me that Bronny's contributions were more meaningful than several players who played in the game. Whether you want to call that "meaningful" in an overall sense is personal preference, I think.

Still, 9 minutes in a very close playoff game, plus 5 points, is way better than a lot of people were prognosticating for him.
Bronny is what he is, a fringe NBA player who is in the league because of who his dad is.

That outcome as a one-off performance from such a player really isn't that unexpected.

Of course, before this, he had a grand total of 11 minutes of playoff experience over 4 games with no points scored, which also isn't terribly unexpected.
 
I think meaningful contribution can mean making a positive contribution during a meaningful point of the game. Typically, Bronny is a DNP or only plays in blowouts. But due to injuries, he is now making positive contributions during meaningful parts of the game.
He scored all 5 of his points early in the 2nd quarter. He got a whopping 3 minutes and 28 seconds after the half where he did nothing that made the box score.

If that's meaningful, we're grading on a curve so nice that most P4 college players could also be "meaningful contributors" in the NBA playoffs.
 
He scored all 5 of his points early in the 2nd quarter. He got a whopping 3 minutes and 28 seconds after the half where he did nothing that made the box score.

If that's meaningful, we're grading on a curve so nice that most P4 college players could also be "meaningful contributors" in the NBA playoffs.
Playing in the second quarter is certainly meaningful for Bronny. But there could be a Bronny curve at play.
 
Bronny is what he is, a fringe NBA player who is in the league because of who his dad is.
He was drafted #55. It's not as if they invested a lot of resources in him. And they wouldn't be playing him in the playoffs if he wasn't good enough. Nepotism doesn't get you minutes in the post-season.

Several players taken ahead of him have not appeared in any NBA games. Others who have appeared have done much less. Harrison Ingram, for instance, has played in 5 NBA games total
 
He was drafted #55. It's not as if they invested a lot of resources in him. And they wouldn't be playing him in the playoffs if he wasn't good enough. Nepotism doesn't get you minutes in the post-season.
Nepotism is the reason he’s in the NBA right now.

Injuries are the reason he sees the court for more than mop-up time in the playoffs.
 
Sounds more like bias as most P4 players could not make meaningful contributions in an NBA playoff game.
If you narrow it to P4 starters & high-level subs, sure they could as a one-off if given 2 years in the NBA to get acclimated, multiple shots at playing in play-off games, and counting 5 points in 9 minutes as “meaningful”.
 
If you narrow it to P4 starters & high-level subs, sure they could as a one-off if given 2 years in the NBA to get acclimated, multiple shots at playing in play-off games, and counting 5 points in 9 minutes as “meaningful”.
Well, as I just noted, Harrison Ingram was drafted 15 spots above Bronny (so same draft) and has played a grand total of 5 games in the league.
 
Back
Top