Comments on: NBA’s Fried Liver Attack

By: Owen

Owen — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:19:15 +0000

Knickerblogger – Golden State may be a joy to watch. But I think too many people have taken GS’ surprising victory over the Mavericks as confirmation of the fact that perimeter play beats interior play in the new NBA, or that fast breaking is better than slow pace basektball. The bottom line here is that the Warriors were 5-6 in the playoffs and didnt make it past the conference semifinals. They beat the one seed by shooting very well from three in a bunch of games and because they lured that team out of playing the style of play which had made them highly successful. Credit should go where its due, but in the second round the inherent flaws in their game were exposed. They went 6-30 last night from three and it cost them the game. They couldnt defend the basket against Boozer, who ran wild against them.

People have been raving about the drive and dish approach here, but really, the truth is that its not that hard to generate an open three point looks for an NBA team. It’s hitting them consistently that is the real trick. A team like Golden State is capable of beating anyone if it can stay hot for four games. But its not a model for consistently winning basketball games over the long haul.

I think we should come out of the playoffs thinking the same thing as we did going in, boring teams led by players who can generate a lot of high percentage shots, and who dominate the boards, will always do better in the long run…

By: Brian Cronin

Brian Cronin — Tue, 15 May 2007 21:46:54 +0000

I?ve soured on games like Chess, because there is little luck involved. It becomes clear after a round or 2 who the best player is, and unless you?re close in skill, that guy is always going to win.

Good point. That is why I only play chess with folks I think are worse than me. ;)

Nah, seriously, that’s a great point. Most people I know who play chess are ABOUT my level, so it works out – but if they weren’t, yeah, it’d be silly.

By: jon abbey

jon abbey — Tue, 15 May 2007 21:34:32 +0000

Russian Roulette? :)

By: Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

Mike K. (KnickerBlogger) — Tue, 15 May 2007 20:46:05 +0000

I’m always in search of interesting strategy games that are easy to learn, fun for everyone, and keep people involved. I tend to get bored at games like Trivial Pursuit, where either you know the damn question or you don’t, and you spend half the time watching the other people play. Monopoly is OK, but a tad slow for my taste. It falls to the same trap of waiting while everyone else is deciding whether or not to buy houses. In Risk, if it’s not your turn you may be rolling for defense, or you have to pay attention to what is going on to find weaknesses (and playing instigator is critical to success).

I’ve soured on games like Chess, because there is little luck involved. It becomes clear after a round or 2 who the best player is, and unless you’re close in skill, that guy is always going to win.

So that’s why I like a games like Risk, 31, and Hearts. You can teach someone in a few minutes. The games rarely last too long (OK maybe Risk can go on too long, but if you’re starting with 6 people, you’re not likely to be around in the end, statistically). And there is a fair amount of luck involved. So if you have any more suggestions, I’m all ears.

By: Lefty

Lefty — Tue, 15 May 2007 16:12:27 +0000

Hey Mike, you ever played Riskopoly? Two players per team, with one player playing monopoly and the other Risk. Monopoly money can be used to buy armies and armies can be turned in (at a discount) for money. The object is to win both games. Also, if you haven’t ever played Diplomacy, you need to try it. After the initial choice of countries there is no luck involved, just strategy. Sorry, I know this is off target but I loved the momentary revisiting of college days long gone by. :-)