***2021-2022 NBA Season Thread***

[PleaseBlitz]

Im not an NBA watcher. However, one of my closest friends at work went to Davidson with Curry, and the highlight of my day today was him trying to explain how important Steph Curry is to that community. 

[No Nonsense]

18 minutes ago, Hersh said:

I would love a Draymond type on the Wiz. I mean, I don't love all the antics and he definitely deserves more Ts but I'll take him on my team all day. Dude understands his role which is bring energy, defense, rebound, help push the pace, assists and **** with the other team. 

You just described Bill Lambier who has better numbers and championships. Is HE a hall of famer? 

[Destino]

27 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Im not an NBA watcher. However, one of my closest friends at work went to Davidson with Curry, and the highlight of my day today was him trying to explain how important Steph Curry is to that community. 

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, Hersh said:

I would love a Draymond type on the Wiz. I mean, I don't love all the antics and he definitely deserves more Ts but I'll take him on my team all day. Dude understands his role which is bring energy, defense, rebound, help push the pace, assists and **** with the other team. 

he’d be trash in a standard pick n roll heavy NBA offense.  His assists are a function of having so many players that play without the ball in their hands.  Put him on any team where creating offense, requires dribbling the ball (which is essentially true for 29 teams) and he’s almost unplayable.  

[TradeTheBeal!]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Im not an NBA watcher. However, one of my closest friends at work went to Davidson with Curry, and the highlight of my day today was him trying to explain how important Steph Curry is to that community. 

Davidson sucks.

 

VCU BASKETBALL

[PleaseBlitz]

14 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Davidson sucks.

 

VCU BASKETBALL

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by PleaseBlitz

[bearrock]

57 minutes ago, Destino said:

he’d be trash in a standard pick n roll heavy NBA offense.  His assists are a function of having so many players that play without the ball in their hands.  Put him on any team where creating offense, requires dribbling the ball (which is essentially true for 29 teams) and he’s almost unplayable.  

 

GSW was a near .500 team without Green this year.  He would not do well in a traditional pick and roll, but very few bigs could play Green's initiator role for GSW.  

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

GSW was a near .500 team without Green this year.  He would not do well in a traditional pick and roll, but very few bigs could play Green's initiator role for GSW.  

 

First without trying to take into account who they played, who else missed games with Green and what other teams did in comparable games, this conversation essentially worthless.  There's just too many variable looking simply at games w/ vs. w/o.  Especially if they were resting him on the 2nd days of back-to-back and stuff like that

 

But even given that, the stats don't really back you up.  They actually averaged slightly more points a game without Green than for the whole season (111.5 vs. 111).  Their problem was on defense where they gave up just under 110 points a game without Green but only gave up 105.5 per game through the whole season.  And things like FG% and 3 pt% go up slightly or stay the same without Green.

 

IF Green is important to the team compared to whoever they replace him with when he doesn't play, the problem is those people aren't as good on defense or at rebounding.

 

Just from that series, Horford for Green makes GS a better team and the Celtics a worse team.

 

If GS had Jokic instead of Green the series is a landslide for GS.  And I think there are pretty wide range of bigs in between Horford and Jokic where GS still wins the series pretty easily.

Edited June 18, 2022 by PeterMP

[The Evil Genius]

All I can say is take it from someone who has watched nearly every GS game for the past 8+ years. Dray's contributions cannot be relegated to just stats. There are a million other intangibles that are missed when you watch them 10-15 games a year or you rely on stats to measure him.

 

Let me ask you this, if replacing him was so easy because there are a ton of other bigs who have better stats, why hasn't GS done that? Dubs have no problem paying the most luxury tax every year.  So it's not money keeping them from doing it. 

Edited June 18, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[bearrock]

41 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

First without trying to take into account who they played, who else missed games with Green and what other teams did in comparable games, this conversation essentially worthless.

 

It's 19-17.  It's not a small sample size.  At nearly half a season, that's enough games to show a trend without nitpicking who the opponents were.

 

41 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

But even given that, the stats don't really back you up.  They actually averaged slightly more points a game without Green than for the whole season (111.5 vs. 111).  Their problem was on defense where they gave up just under 110 points a game without Green but only gave up 105.5 per game through the whole season.  And things like FG% and 3 pt% go up slightly or stay the same without Green.

 

They got Klay back just as Green left.  So at minimum, Green was valuable enough on offense so that adding a player of Klay's production wasn't enough to make the offense better.  I understand that Klay wasn't playing every night, but he still played 3 out of every 4 or 5 and reliably scored 15-20 points a night on short minutes.  That's who replaced Green and GSW offense still wasn't better.

 

41 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Just from that series, Horford for Green makes GS a better team and the Celtics a worse team.

 

 

Game 1 and 6 Horford?  Sure.  He was pretty elite in those games.  2-5?  Not for GSW (I agree it makes Boston worse because Draymond doesn’t fit what Boston does).  Because if nothing else, Draymond does so many more things for GSW that Horford is not able to do.  And Horford's added dimension on offensive scoring capacity in games 2-5 doesn't replace what Draymond contributed otherwise (you're not putting Horford on Brown for example and you're not using Horford to push the ball down the court allowing shooters to move without the ball).

 

41 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

If GS had Jokic instead of Green the series is a landslide for GS. 

 

Shocking

 

41 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

And I think there are pretty wide range of bigs in between Horford and Jokic where GS still wins the series pretty easily.

 

Green is a unique fit for GSW.  Obviously an elite big makes GSW better.  Horford was an elite big in games 1 and 6.  Games 2-5 Horford does not make GSW better even though games 2-5 Horford was much better for Boston than Green would have been.  

Edited June 18, 2022 by bearrock

[Hersh]

3 hours ago, No Nonsense said:

You just described Bill Lambier who has better numbers and championships. Is HE a hall of famer? 

 

Did I say Draymond should be in the Hall of Fame?

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

Green has thrived with the warriors but I think Green saw where he fit and modeled his game towards the fit. I’m not sure if Green was somewhere else he wouldn’t have adjusted.

 

I really think the reason his shooting and scoring became so bad is because after getting Durant, it wasn’t something he focused on.

 

Now I’m not saying he would become a 20 point score or something like that but I don’t think he would of regressed so much. 

Watching the warriors without green is a huge difference. I’m not one of those people that like to say **** like “imposed their will” “they got whatever they wanted” “they choked and looked scared” and etc (cough momma there goes that man” because I feel like it’s lazy characterizations for the subtleties that actually go on. For example, people are saying Tatum folded under the pressure but he was the primary focus of the warriors defense. The warriors helped on Tatum way more than they did brown. Plus Wiggins defended him beautifully. It’s ridiculous how much more athletic Wiggins appeared to be than Tatum. Stronger and faster.
 

i digress, But the dude (Draymond) really is the engine and tone setter for this team. When he comes out with that passion it motivates the team to play harder. He also dictates players where to go on defense. Without him, the warriors miss way more assignments. 
 

Without Draymond, I don’t think Wiggins is nearly the same defender. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

Green is a unique fit for GSW.  Obviously an elite big makes GSW better.  Horford was an elite big in games 1 and 6.  Games 2-5 Horford does not make GSW better even though games 2-5 Horford was much better for Boston than Green would have been.  

 

Green was really bad in several games too.  I'm talking about over all.  Game 3 Horford is better period than game 3 Green and better for GS than Green.  Horford played at least as well as Green in every case and in some games played much better.  And nobody really considers Horford an elite big any more.  He was salary dumped and then included in a trade to the Celtics as a partial match to a salary dump.

 

Doesn't really matter if it isn't a small sample size.  Doesn't mean it isn't biased.  You are now arguing that is biased for your favor.  You are now arguing that the underlying stats that you cited aren't good stats because they are biased because of when Klay came back.  And of course Klay coming back moved Poole to the bench.  Maybe that's the difference?

 

A better way to look at is to look at plus/minus.  Green is a +4/game.  The Warriors are plus 5.5/game for the season.  Green cost them 1.5 points a game compared to the other people they played.

 

Not many games but the regular season games from when Green came back show the same thing to an even more extreme.  GS is a +2.4/game.  Green is a -0.42.  They are nearly 3 points/game when Green isn't on the floor.

 

And the playoffs are similar though Green did the close the gap some.  As a team, GS is a +5.05/game.  Green is 4.64.

 

On average, Golden State is a better team when Green isn't on the floor.  That is hard to reconcile with him being a key contributor to their offense.  Take it a little further and Green has a negative offensive box score and a positive defensive a box score.  He's a better defensive player than offensive player.  Despite being a negative player over all (compared to the players that replace him), the effect is bigger on offense then defense.  He's a net negative player because of his affect on the offense.  Which doesn't make sense if plays some specific special role on offense.

Edited June 18, 2022 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

18 minutes ago, Dr. Do Itch Big said:

i digress, But the dude (Draymond) really is the engine and tone setter for this team. When he comes out with that passion it motivates the team to play harder. He also dictates players where to go on defense. Without him, the warriors miss way more assignments. 
 

Without Draymond, I don’t think Wiggins is nearly the same defender. 

 

I'm not going to argue that Draymond's attitude and personality aren't important to the team.  That's impossible quantitate and actually seems likely to me.  And I think he's still a positive defensive player (mostly because the refs allow him to get away with a lot of contact).  I'm also not going to argue about what Green would have become if they didn't sign Durant.

 

But he's not a key part of their offense now.

Edited June 18, 2022 by PeterMP

[Momma There Goes That Man]

31 minutes ago, Dr. Do Itch Big said:

cough momma there goes that man”

after everything i did for them this is the respect and thanks I get  

[bearrock]

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Doesn't really matter if it isn't a small sample size.  Doesn't mean it isn't biased.  You are now arguing that is biased for your favor.  You are now arguing that the underlying stats that you cited aren't good stats because they are biased because of when Klay came back.  And of course Klay coming back moved Poole to the bench.  Maybe that's the difference?

 

I cited GSW win-loss as the underlying stat in support of Green's value to the team.  When did I say that the win-loss was no longer a good stat? 

 

16 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

A better way to look at is to look at plus/minus.  Green is a +4/game.  The Warriors are plus 5.5/game for the season.  Green cost them 1.5 points a game compared to the other people they played.

 

Not many games but the regular season games from when Green came back show the same thing to an even more extreme.  GS is a +2.4/game.  Green is a -0.42.  They are nearly 3 points/game when Green isn't on the floor.

 

And the playoffs are similar though Green did the close the gap some.  As a team, GS is a +5.05/game.  Green is 4.64.

 

Green had a great +/- for all months of the season except March when it was an atrocious -14, cratering his average (which of course coincides with Curry's injury).  There were months when he averaged +14, 7, 5, 15.   

 

Also, he was a plus 117 over 22 games in the playoffs for 5.3.  Not sure where you got 4.64.

 

27 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

On average, Golden State is a better team when Green isn't on the floor.  That is hard to reconcile with him being a key contributor to their offense.  Take it a little further and Green has a negative offensive box score and a positive defensive a box score.  He's a better defensive player than offensive player.  Despite being a negative player over all (compared to the players that replace him), the effect is bigger on offense then defense.  He's a net negative player because of his affect on the offense.  Which doesn't make sense if plays some specific special role on offense.

 

Even with some terrible games in these playoffs, GSW had a higher +/- with Green than without.  Say what you want about Green's offensive role for GSW, I don't think you'll find many who are knowledgeable about basketball say that GSW is a better team without Green.  Certainly no one on GSW staff or squad or fans who watch then regularly would come close to agreeing with that statement.

[Hersh]

2 hours ago, Destino said:

 

 

 

he’d be trash in a standard pick n roll heavy NBA offense.  His assists are a function of having so many players that play without the ball in their hands.  Put him on any team where creating offense, requires dribbling the ball (which is essentially true for 29 teams) and he’s almost unplayable.  

 

Give me a guy that is a 7 time all-NBA defense, one time defensive POY and does all the dirty work and I'll make it work. 

 

I will say that I think he will have the steepest decline

[Hersh]

Draymond has been a starter on 4 championship teams. I mean, people are free to hate but I'll take guys that are starters w/ championships on a **** organization like the Wiz all day, every day. He definitely had some ****ty games in the playoffs, but he was clutch in game 6. Dude was +16 in the game only behind GPII who was +18. Shutting down Brown? No big deal. Anyone could've done that. 

 

 

 

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm not going to argue that Draymond's attitude and personality aren't important to the team.  That's impossible quantitate and actually seems likely to me.  And I think he's still a positive defensive player (mostly because the refs allow him to get away with a lot of contact).  I'm also not going to argue about what Green would have become if they didn't sign Durant.

 

But he's not a key part of their offense now.

I don’t think he is as vital on offense as he was before. Talking pre KD because he was a double digit scorer but he was still the fourth option on offense. So we are talking 2 seasons. 73 win season was his peak offensively. And with how the team changed it feels like saying regression is an oversimplification of the circumstances. You got 3 dudes who could potentially score 60. Why would he focus on scoring. And even if he did. You bet your ass Kerr would yell at him if he took more shots then Curry, KD, or Klay. 
 

On a night where every warrior struggles to score Greens deficiency’s becomes glaring but that’s where he needs to get better and to his credit he did against the Celtics. In game 3, smart and etc essentially stopped guarding green and green didn’t make him pay for it. He made adjustments as did the warriors. Also offense isn’t purely scoring. He is a pretty good playmaker and has great chemistry with Klay Currry and Wiggins which helps get easier buckets. 

6 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Draymond has been a starter on 4 championship teams. I mean, people are free to hate but I'll take guys that are starters w/ championships on a **** organization like the Wiz all day, every day. He definitely had some ****ty games in the playoffs, but he was clutch in game 6. Dude was +16 in the game only behind GPII who was +18. Shutting down Brown? No big deal. Anyone could've done that. 

 

 

 

Draymond and the Warriors defense was lights out in game 6. People say it’s the Celtics that got sloppy but I think the Warriors did an amazing job switching, rotating, boxing out, and creating turnovers. GPII and Curry’s hands were excellent. Cookies all night. 

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

I was listening to a podcast which made a great point. The Celtics offense went against what they normally do and actively seek a mismatch (Curry), two reasons why they do this. Wear him down to limit his offense impact and to get an “easier” shot. However, the historical data on offense rating when seeking out players to attack isn’t higher than normal offense rating unless it’s by LeBron, Luka, and Harden. That type of basketball isn’t conductive to winning unless you have one of those 3. 
 

they might make it look easy but there’s only 1 LeBron, Luka, and Harden. Obviously talking about Houston Harden. 

[Destino]

5 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

GSW was a near .500 team without Green this year.  He would not do well in a traditional pick and roll, but very few bigs could play Green's initiator role for GSW.  

I don’t think his passing is extraordinary.  He’s a good passer but it’s their motion that creates the passes 9 times out of 10.  Not sure there’s been a fantastic defender that was a great passer, but otherwise garbage on offense though.  That’s an odd combination.  
 

I think there’s a good number of PF that could succeed as initiators in Golden States hybrid triangle offense.  Especially in todays nba where PF that can dribble pass and shoot are for more common than in the past.  You just don’t see it so much because that isn’t what they’re being asked to do.  
 

 

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

44 minutes ago, Destino said:

I don’t think his passing is extraordinary.  He’s a good passer but it’s their motion that creates the passes 9 times out of 10.  Not sure there’s been a fantastic defender that was a great passer, but otherwise garbage on offense though.  That’s an odd combination.  
 

I think there’s a good number of PF that could succeed as initiators in Golden States hybrid triangle offense.  Especially in todays nba where PF that can dribble pass and shoot are for more common than in the past.  You just don’t see it so much because that isn’t what they’re being asked to do.  
 

 

Who? Draymond is also a decent dribbler. He ain’t got Curry handles but I can’t think of any PFs who can dribble and consistently bring up the ball like he does. Not only consistently but at the pace he does. Draymond imitates in the half court and in transition. 
 

off the top of my head I can’t think any PFs who do that. 

Edited June 18, 2022 by Dr. Do Itch Big

[bearrock]

You also have to factor in that when GSW does their imposed fast breaks (where it's not a natural fast break situation), they hand the ball to Green and he's supposed to rush down the floor to force the defense to react quickly.  This requires good passing and good dribbling (which many bigs could do), but it also requires tremendous decision making because it's a thin line between intentional orchestrated chaos and reckless plays. 

 

Add on the unselfishness on offense where he touches the ball a lot but is asked to pass first, second, third and shoot as a last resort, I don't think that's all that common.  Combined with his defensive abilities (both capability and versatility) and willingness to get down and dirty on the grunt work, he's a pretty unique player who meshes really well with what GSW does.  I'm not gonna say no one else in the league can do it, but it's not like you can just pick a good big and say go do what Draymond does.

[PeterMP]

9 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

I cited GSW win-loss as the underlying stat in support of Green's value to the team.  When did I say that the win-loss was no longer a good stat? 

 

 

Green had a great +/- for all months of the season except March when it was an atrocious -14, cratering his average (which of course coincides with Curry's injury).  There were months when he averaged +14, 7, 5, 15.   

 

Also, he was a plus 117 over 22 games in the playoffs for 5.3.  Not sure where you got 4.64.

 

 

Even with some terrible games in these playoffs, GSW had a higher +/- with Green than without.  Say what you want about Green's offensive role for GSW, I don't think you'll find many who are knowledgeable about basketball say that GSW is a better team without Green.  Certainly no one on GSW staff or squad or fans who watch then regularly would come close to agreeing with that statement.

If the scoring in those games, that show that GS actually scored fewer points, are biased because Klay came back, then just by default the W/L must also be biased.  Though, the fact that he was a -14 without Curry shows exactly the point.  He's very limited and only works in the context of having great shooters.

 

I got them from the NBA stats page and just took the average.

 

Overall, I don't think they are better team w/o Green.  I'm not saying you could subtract Green and be better.  There's a limit how far down the bench you can go.  If you simply substracted Green from the team, then they'd end up playing somebody else who currently gets little to no playing time a lot more playing time.  And as I said, I think he's still a positive defensive player and playing with good shooters hides his offensive limitations. 

 

But even taking your +/- stats, that's not somebody that plays a hard to replace role in your offense.

[bearrock]

At the end of the day, these are opinions that's not amenable to a great deal of proof, particularly because Draymond supporters will point to non-stat positives as a big factor while detractors will say those are overrated.  That's highly subjective.

 

Quote

If the scoring in those games, that show that GS actually scored fewer points, are biased because Klay came back, then just by default the W/L must also be biased.

 

The point of Klay coming back was that in essence that GSW swapped Green for Klay and their offense pretty much stayed the same.  Now granted that this isn't the heydays Klay and Poole lost about 5 minutes to Klay, but Thompson playing 75%-60% of the games while scoring 15-20 on 25 minutes isn't an offensive blackhole.  GSW added him while supposedly subtracting zero or negative offensive value Green and their offense stayed pretty much exactly the same.

 

Offense of GSW pre/post Green injury is not apples to apples cause Klay came back (and there's no reason to argue that Klay is a net zero on offense).  So that argues against the notion that Green has zero or negative offense when you swap out Green for Klay with pretty much the same overall results.

 

Win-loss being better pre injury and pre Klay's return counsels in favor of Green's value because obviously Klay's return isn't likely to effect the win-loss negatively. You expect both the offense and win-loss to go up with Klay's return if all things stay the same.  With Green's injury, offense stayed the same and win-loss cratered.  That's meaningful in favorably evaluating Green's contribution to offense and win-loss.

 

Quote

Though, the fact that he was a -14 without Curry shows exactly the point.  He's very limited and only works in the context of having great shooters.

 

No one disputes this.  Green fits what GSW does, which of course is predicated on a cadre of great to good shooters all over the floor.  He's limited, but that doesn't mean that he's not unique or very valuable to his particular team.

 

Quote

Overall, I don't think they are better team w/o Green. 

 

 I'm not saying you could subtract Green and be better.  There's a limit how far down the bench you can go.  If you simply substracted Green from the team, then they'd end up playing somebody else who currently gets little to no playing time a lot more playing time.  And as I said, I think he's still a positive defensive player and playing with good shooters hides his offensive limitations. 

 

But even taking your +/- stats, that's not somebody that plays a hard to replace role in your offense.

 

I mean that's certainly a more defensible position than GSW being a better team without Green.  GSW could take in a good big, adapt their offensive style and try to do it differently and if the big is good enough, they probably still get good results. 

 

First of all though, good bigs are not plentiful in the NBA.  Good bigs who can provide what Green provides on defense are even less.  Unless GSW is replacing Green (at least prior to the impending inevitable fall off) with someone who is among the top bigs in the league, GSW can't just plug in a jag PF and have similar success.  

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

The point of Klay coming back was that in essence that GSW swapped Green for Klay and their offense pretty much stayed the same.  Now granted that this isn't the heydays Klay and Poole lost about 5 minutes to Klay, but Thompson playing 75%-60% of the games while scoring 15-20 on 25 minutes isn't an offensive blackhole.  GSW added him while supposedly subtracting zero or Win-loss being better pre injury and pre Klay's return counsels in favor of Green's value because obviously Klay's return isn't likely to effect the win-loss negatively. You expect both the offense and win-loss to go up with Klay's return if all things stay the same.  With Green's injury, offense stayed the same and win-loss cratered.  That's meaningful in favorably evaluating Green's contribution to offense and win-loss.

 

Right and at the end of the day, the data is biased.  And you have pointed out one bias.  But that doesn't mean there aren't other biases.  Including who they played, the schedule (back-to-backs, road vs. home), etc.  Just comparing W/L records or points scored without a systematic and wide spread method of controlling for biases is pointless.  And Klay Thompson was a -2.9/100 poss. for the season.

 

As for who can do what Green does, right in that series you see Horford run the ball up the court.  And Green does have a lot of TOs.  His TO/assist ratio is good but not great, especially when you consider who is passing to (some of the best scores in the league).

 

And, yes I'll tell you that Green is a better defensive player than Horford, but it isn't by a lot and what you lose with Green on defense you gain with shooting from Horford.

 

And in general, we've gone from he plays a unique role that can't be replaced by a comparable player to he doesn't equal a black hole.

 

And nobody says that Horford is a special NBA player at this point in his career.

 

 

9 hours ago, Dr. Do Itch Big said:

Who? Draymond is also a decent dribbler. He ain’t got Curry handles but I can’t think of any PFs who can dribble and consistently bring up the ball like he does. Not only consistently but at the pace he does. Draymond imitates in the half court and in transition. 
 

off the top of my head I can’t think any PFs who do that. 

 

Giannis?  KD?  Off the top of your head you can't come up with Giannis and KD?

Edited June 18, 2022 by PeterMP