It’s a really good article. I had to chuckle at the qualifier in the stat in this quote though;
“For Curry, passing to Thompson for a 3 was unmatched. His 622 assists on Thompson 3-pointers is the most by any duo in the past 25 seasons, according to ESPN Research. Green's assists on 611 3-pointers to Curry is second.”
So it’s NY v. MIN in the WNBA finals… I was hoping for Connecticut, but man this Minnesota squad is outrageously well coached. Cheryl Reeve is the Popovich of the W.
For the first time since 2014, the GM Survey does not rank Steph Curry as #1 or #2 at point guard.
This is interesting for a couple reasons:
1. Steph at his best is still a #1 or #2 player in the league if you tweak the numbers just right.
2. Despite the nominal positioning, Steph has never really been a #1 or #2 ‘point guard’ in the league.
As a subset of the guard position, the ‘point’ modifier defines this position as the player largely responsible for a) bringing the ball up the court, b) initiating the offense by calling plays, passing and playmaking, c) controlling the pace of the game by dribbling and holding the ball, d) shooting from the perimeter, scoring from the midrange, and driving the paint, e) being the team leader.
Steph certainly excels at d) and e), but slightly (and sometimes significantly) less so with a), b) and c). And as such, Steph isn't really the player responsible for a), b) and c), which accounts for 60% of point guard duties. Steph is rarely at the ‘point’ position.
It wouldn’t be accurate to say that Steph changed the definition of the point guard position. He changed the game, undoubtedly, but did not shift the game away from heliocentricity at the point position. Point players like Jokic, Luka, Brunson, Lebron, Sabonis, Harden, CP3, Young, LaMelo and Wagner are increasingly shaping the game from the point position on the offensive side of the ball (and from the above criteria).
No shade cast toward the Unanimous Night Night - and who could even try? My ‘point’ is that this is the first time in 10 years that the GM Survey finally got it right. Steph isn’t a top point guard in the league. He never really was, based on the above criteria.
My other ‘point’ is that GM Surveys are pointless and dumb.
Once you start parsing it, you realize pretty quickly that the traditional positional designations are pretty silly and arbitrary. Steph is not a PG, for the reasons you note. Magic was not a PG, since “you are what you guard,” and he was too big and slow laterally on D to chase little guys around the perimeter, so always played alongside a little quick guy who could do that. Especially in today’s NBA with its emphasis on perimeter D, Magic would be a point forward or point wing in the mold of LeBron, Luka, or Dray. Bird played the same basic position as Magic. Jordan was much more PG or point wing (same basic position as Magic, Bird, LeBron, et al.) than “shooting guard.” Jokic is a point guard in a center’s body. Etc.
Interesting how so many of the GOATs are also the ones who most defy the traditional positional archetypes.
I’d just go with “Steph is the greatest 5 on 5 basketball player of all time,” and call it a day. 😊
Even there when you parse it, it's more complicated. And let's not cut it too fine. Jokic is not a point guard in a center's body if you are what you guard. He's not guarding the other team's point player the way, say, Igoudala did as a point forward. Neither is Luka to the extent he guards anybody. It's more like some players have to be assessed differently on offense than defense.
Also, look at who else was on the court with them. Magic was on the court with guys like Kareem, Worthy, AC Green, Byron Scott, Rambis—if Magic wasn't the point guard there was no point guard on that team. Bird was not a point anything; he was a scoring wing who was a great passer — for that matter, he was a great everything — but Dennis Johnson was the PG on those teams, and DJ was a true PG.
Yep. Historically, on offense, PG Draymond, 2G Curry, SF Klay. On D, Klay spent more time guarding PGs, Curry spent a lot of his time guarding 2Gs, while Dray guarded PFs/Cs. While the players playing the classic positions got all jumbled up, what didn't get jumbled were all the skills that had been attributed to certain positions prior. Ball handling, passing, shooting, cutting, rim pressure, on/off ball defense, post defense, perimeter defense, etc. Every 5 man lineup still needs a good balance of these on the court at any given time. We used to have expectations about the grouping of these skill sets based on a player's size. That is now out the window.
Good points. We also have to remember that today's teams play zone defense at times, and there was a time that was an illegal defense. So there's another example of how rule changes over time affect player roles.
That's true. Math changed the landscape too when someone figured out that hitting .333% of 3s was the same as hitting .50% of 2s. What has been overlooked is that more misses (shooting 3s) creates more misses, thus more transition opportunities for opponent. I'm still a believer in the 2-point shot, especially in the playoffs and I hope we don't go down the 3-point shot rabbit hole and convincing ourselves that there is a championship down that hole.
I also am still a believer in the 2-point shot, and not just layups. If guys like Trayce, JK, and Loon could nail short-midrange jumpers consistently, it would open up a lot more scoring possibilities. Remember how Livingston used to chip in with that deadly turnaround? He didn't need to score big numbers, just sink that shot at the right time. And when the 3s aren't falling, rather than continuing to bomb away until we're in a hole, stepping in to shoot a midrange 2 can get a shooter going.
In an injury free world, I think this is the rotation with the highest two-way ceiling. It won't happen for multiple reasons, I know. Tried to mimic last year, where a lot of guys were in the mid-20s with a few in the 15-20 range.
Hield and Anderson get DNPs. Probably biased against them bc they are new. Anderson could take minutes from Looney. Hield maybe from GP2 if more shooting is needed. If Dray can play more 5, could cut into TJD or push Looney to DNP.
Steph and Dray limited minutes to keep them as healthy as possible. Obviously if Wiggins is last years version his minutes would drop. Could see Melton getting more minutes, maybe running point a little.
I’d probably make GP2 the “as needed” guy and give those minutes to Hield or Waters. With Melton, Wiggins, Moody, JK, Draymond, TJD and Looney all getting minutes, GP2’s defense isn’t as valuable and needed as it was previously. Hield’s shooting, especially when Steph rests, will be of greater value.
If you had Wiggins, Dray and TJD out there with them, I think they’d do fine. Podz isn’t a defensive slouch and Hield impressed me with his effort on Saturday far more than I was expecting.
SloMo will get some minutes at the 4 and maybe the 5. Hield and maybe Waters will get time at the 2/3. I'm not so sure Wiggs and JK will get 32 each although that's reasonable; maybe more like 27-28, comparable to what you've given Dray. Plus there will be rest games for the older guys and inevitable injuries so guys will pick up minutes there. Health is especially a question for GP2.
I’ve found this series fun and totally reasonable. Perfect? Of course not, but for sure I couldn’t produce something even remotely as good.
But this has gotten me thinking about the “fairness” of comparing across eras. So - if you did this again, but drew a line to only consider the modern era, where would you draw it? My first guess is 1979/80 (first year of the 3 point shot). Sure, the 80s were very different from the 2010s, but fundamentally pretty similar? I didn’t start watching until the 90s, and even then mostly just watched the playoffs.
The other issue is evaluating a player who’s career straddles whatever season you choose as the cutoff. If you use 79/80 as the beginning of the “modern era” and a player played from 74 to 84, does half of his career get discarded as irrelevant ?
The ABA merger, 3 pt line, and start of free agency all are huge changes, and definitely make me think of the NBA before 1975 as incomparable to the NBA after 1980.
I don't feel there's a good cutoff at all. I don't even feel comfortable comparing 2010 to 2020.
If I had access to the data, I'd do something like the following.
For each stat that I'm interested in, a player's value in that stat is relative to the rest of the league for a given season (like Adjusted Shooting in bballref). So for example, if a player averaged 80 FT% for the season they'd receive a different score if league avg was 80% vs 75%.
And so for a given career, you'd average or sum up these "normalized" season stats to get a final score.
I've thought about this too. Smarter people than I will come up with more nuanced (better) answers, but I' decided that the "modern" era started after the ABA/NBA merger. So 1976.
Start of 3 pt shot is good too. Also has the advantage that 1980 is the start of the Magic/Bird era.
1) Just a small window that this channel somehow has, who knows how these guys are actually shooting in practice day in and day out. Moody and Curry seemed to go shot for shot in that other video I thought, wouldn't say he outshot Curry necessarily. If someone is really bored they could count but I don't think it's that important lol.
2) I get the sense that Podz is the type of guy who thrives off of competition, like a Jauan Jennings. Maybe the empty gym shooting practice doesn't get the juices flowing.
3) I don't think anyone on the team is challenging Podz for the backup PG minutes, seems like he has those locked up and that's probably 15-18 minutes a game without any other minutes added on.
4) Podz is far ahead of Moody when it comes to being on the ball imo. I think Moody is a better off ball player but last season with all of the ballhandlers being small guards (other than Draymond), there were times (specifically when Draymond was suspended) where Moody was tough to play. I think the Anderson pick up was huge for the Warriors as a "Draymond backup" and would hope that finally having that extra ballhandling with size will allow Kerr to opt for more shooting+defense elsewhere in the lineup. Tbh I think Anderson is going to be their best signing since 2022, but I think they may need to tweak the roster and find a stretch big first to really unlock his utility.
And that Podz is more aggressive on rebounding, blowing up plays, taking charges, etc. He does all the little things to the max. MM does all the little things better than JK, but not better than Podz. IOW, there's a reason why Podz was second on the team in +/- after Steph last year.
I must admit after watching film of Bob Cousy play it creates an odd feeling listing him as better than I Thomas, J Kidd and the like.😊 But I understand the survey reasons.
I wonder if in the year 2085 fans will look at Curry and Lebron like we look at a Cousy. I think not because I am thinking there are limits to what a human body can do and Lebron, GA and the like are probably somewhat close.
Basketball greatness (and in other sports) is not just about visible physical athletic ability.
Bob Cousy ran championship teams as a "point" or lead/playmaking ballhandler.
He was very successful in controlling the offense and using his vision and knowledge of the game (both teammates and opponents) to the supreme advantage for his Celtics team.
I can remember as a very young child seeing him play on TV and he also had an obvious "pizzaz" (that others at that time did not show) to his game especially with passing, but also in his overall courtmanship in making winning basketball plays.
Also sometimes you can see an old timer's influence on later players and on the game, whether direct or indirect, and that's an indicator of their importance, regardless of "ranking." Watch Cousy, then watch Maravich; different eras, different players, but there sure seems to be a straight line from Cousy to the Pistol with regard to showmanship and passing. We know Elgin Baylor inspired Dr J. The league changed rules because of Wilt. Today it's Steph's shooting and movement influencing a whole generation of young players.
Well said. You gotta crawl before you can walk, a lot of the moves/techniques we see today were built sequentially over time off of the moves/techniques of the past greats.
I said I get the survey. I just still find it comical watching Cousy, the ball handling wizard, dribble out the clock only using his right hand. I am not positive he was proficient using his left hand and would have to watch some clips to find out. Those were the days my friend and I’m glad they did end😊
The traveling and especially carrying rules were enforced wildly differently back then, to where every single crossover you see today would be considered a carry. Thinking Basketball did a really cool video looking at the differences in rule enforcement, and considering how comically strict they were back then I too am glad we dont have to watch that era
It's also interesting watching all the old footage where players dribble without putting the hand on the side of the ball (and definitely nowhere under it).
I'm under the impression he dribbled with one hand as well lol, but back then I don't really know how much emphasis there was in training your off hand the way there is today
…to a point. Sure people are faster and stronger now, but the league is now more elite than ever. It draws athletes from all over the world and very few of the best basketball players in the world are going to choose other professions because they pay better.
And I absolutely refuse to use that “against their peers” methodology for baseball players who played prior prior to players of color being allowed to join.
If you don't use "against their peers," you end up with meaningless conclusions because baseball, being older, has evolved even more than basketball. How do you compare across eras when in one era foul balls weren't strikes, pitchers threw under hand, the curve ball was new and was the only breaking ball, and it took five balls for a walk? How do you compare between the Dead Ball era, when you could win a home run title with 5 homers and gloves barely covered the hand, and just 10 years afterward when batting numbers were sky high, several sluggers were hitting 50+ homers in a season, the ball was different, strategies were different, larger and padded gloves were used. It gets easier to compare later, when changes were fewer, but then we get the modern era with modern training methods and metrics.
I see your points. My 2 cents: as a cricket tragic, Don Bradman is the most statistically dominant outlier in sports*. (He would "average" around 60-70 ppg if he played basketball).
When modern folk scoff because he played in a different Era (1930/40's) I ask them, "Well why didn't anyone else manage to do any where near as close to what he did?"
Judging by their peers is the only benchmark we have.
Yep. In baseball, the equivalent would be Babe Ruth. In 1920, generally considered the first season of the lively ball era, he hit 54 homers. No entire team in the American League (except Ruth's Yankees of course) hit that many. Only one NL team (the Phillies, 64 HRs) hit more than the Babe alone. He also led both leagues in runs, runs batted in, on base %, and some modern stats (OPS, OPS+). Now THAT is dominance.
Oh yeah, and he hit .376, which did NOT lead the league, which points out again the difference in eras. And he was better in 1921.
Perhaps fair to say that Babe was sort of like the Steph Curry of baseball in that, like Steph with the 3pt shot, it sort of took his extreme outlier proficiency to drive home what should have been the obvious fact that the HR was the most valuable play in the sport. And once each player made the math undeniable, it ushered in a more or less immediate revolution in how the game was played. (Yet, being great, both players remained dominant even after the rest of the league ‘caught up.’)
The real point is it's meaningless to talk about what Cousy could do today because he would be a different player. If you leveled the court, so to speak, giving him the advantages of modern training and time to practice the modern game... but it's impossible to do that or to project it. (He's 96 years old, too, so there's that, but we're assuming a prime Cousy. 😊)
The core issue is the premise itself: You simply can't rank players in a valid way across such a large span of time in a game that develops and changes so much.
I've seen almost all of these guys except the oldest (never saw Mikan except short film clips), and going by eyeball and dominance, I'd put Oscar Robertson much higher than this. I don't care that he only won one title because it's a team game, and his Royals teams didn't have enough talent, although they did have some. He was beyond amazing and was in the top 5 in MVP voting for his first 9 (!) seasons in a row. Going by eyeball test, he was MUCH better than, say Jason Kidd, it's not close. I'd put him above a lot of people listed above him but again, it's impossible to really compare when Big O played before the 3-pointer was a thing, before a bunch of rules changes and changes in the style of play. We also get into different positions, comparing smalls to bigs in different eras.
So the entire concept is just too flawed to take seriously.
As the youngsters decry how LeBron, at only 6’9” and 260 pounds, could ever be considered anything but a smallish point guard with a worthless sub-43% 3pt shot, we will empathize with the Cousy fans.
I imagine at some point, fans will look at '15-16 Unanimous and wonder why defenses had no clue how to guard the three point line and put an asterisk on that MVP season.
Warriors don't get any votes for "most promising young core". Wonder how far down the list you'd have to go before they got a vote, it's a vague question because different people have different definitions of "young" and different definitions of "prospect" (some people might ignore a guy like Anthony Edwards because of how established he is)
All those other "cores" have a young ascending superstar surrounded by multiple young pieces. Dubs don't have a young superstar (yet), or even a player who people think might become a superstar.
In related news, Ant & Ja got votes for "who's gonna have a breakout season", lol. I get that anybody could get better (e.g. Steph in 15/16), but I bet lots of voters don't even consider them eligible for that list.
Yeah it's very unstandardized. For the core question they'd have to at least specify a cutoff age, probably would have to list the players under consideration. Even then I would assume some voters would (wrongly imo) put more emphasis on quantity while others would focus on the top guys.
The only one I have even a slight beef with is the guys who picked Dallas as the most fun team to watch. Not a fan of Igo-Ugo offense, personally.
Otherwise, pretty much as you would expect. We've been dumped out of the play-in two years in a row. And in Dray's case, he got his butt suspended for a 1/4 of a season. So, I'm neither surprised, nor mad, that they don't rate Steph or Dray higher.
Not sure why mad, most of it seems pretty conventional to me. Steph got lots of love. Warriors picked as 8th best in the West (making the playoffs). We all, I think, have higher aspirations for this team, but they're not unreasonable. I guess the only thing that really stood out was the lack of recognition for how impactful Draymond is on the defensive end still, but whatever.
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/41669062/steph-curry-draymond-green-golden-state-warriors-klay-thompson
It’s a really good article. I had to chuckle at the qualifier in the stat in this quote though;
“For Curry, passing to Thompson for a 3 was unmatched. His 622 assists on Thompson 3-pointers is the most by any duo in the past 25 seasons, according to ESPN Research. Green's assists on 611 3-pointers to Curry is second.”
(Also; Steph "is not a point guard" 😂)
So it’s NY v. MIN in the WNBA finals… I was hoping for Connecticut, but man this Minnesota squad is outrageously well coached. Cheryl Reeve is the Popovich of the W.
MIN has had NY's number this season too.
For the first time since 2014, the GM Survey does not rank Steph Curry as #1 or #2 at point guard.
This is interesting for a couple reasons:
1. Steph at his best is still a #1 or #2 player in the league if you tweak the numbers just right.
2. Despite the nominal positioning, Steph has never really been a #1 or #2 ‘point guard’ in the league.
As a subset of the guard position, the ‘point’ modifier defines this position as the player largely responsible for a) bringing the ball up the court, b) initiating the offense by calling plays, passing and playmaking, c) controlling the pace of the game by dribbling and holding the ball, d) shooting from the perimeter, scoring from the midrange, and driving the paint, e) being the team leader.
Steph certainly excels at d) and e), but slightly (and sometimes significantly) less so with a), b) and c). And as such, Steph isn't really the player responsible for a), b) and c), which accounts for 60% of point guard duties. Steph is rarely at the ‘point’ position.
It wouldn’t be accurate to say that Steph changed the definition of the point guard position. He changed the game, undoubtedly, but did not shift the game away from heliocentricity at the point position. Point players like Jokic, Luka, Brunson, Lebron, Sabonis, Harden, CP3, Young, LaMelo and Wagner are increasingly shaping the game from the point position on the offensive side of the ball (and from the above criteria).
No shade cast toward the Unanimous Night Night - and who could even try? My ‘point’ is that this is the first time in 10 years that the GM Survey finally got it right. Steph isn’t a top point guard in the league. He never really was, based on the above criteria.
My other ‘point’ is that GM Surveys are pointless and dumb.
Once you start parsing it, you realize pretty quickly that the traditional positional designations are pretty silly and arbitrary. Steph is not a PG, for the reasons you note. Magic was not a PG, since “you are what you guard,” and he was too big and slow laterally on D to chase little guys around the perimeter, so always played alongside a little quick guy who could do that. Especially in today’s NBA with its emphasis on perimeter D, Magic would be a point forward or point wing in the mold of LeBron, Luka, or Dray. Bird played the same basic position as Magic. Jordan was much more PG or point wing (same basic position as Magic, Bird, LeBron, et al.) than “shooting guard.” Jokic is a point guard in a center’s body. Etc.
Interesting how so many of the GOATs are also the ones who most defy the traditional positional archetypes.
I’d just go with “Steph is the greatest 5 on 5 basketball player of all time,” and call it a day. 😊
Even there when you parse it, it's more complicated. And let's not cut it too fine. Jokic is not a point guard in a center's body if you are what you guard. He's not guarding the other team's point player the way, say, Igoudala did as a point forward. Neither is Luka to the extent he guards anybody. It's more like some players have to be assessed differently on offense than defense.
Also, look at who else was on the court with them. Magic was on the court with guys like Kareem, Worthy, AC Green, Byron Scott, Rambis—if Magic wasn't the point guard there was no point guard on that team. Bird was not a point anything; he was a scoring wing who was a great passer — for that matter, he was a great everything — but Dennis Johnson was the PG on those teams, and DJ was a true PG.
Yep. Historically, on offense, PG Draymond, 2G Curry, SF Klay. On D, Klay spent more time guarding PGs, Curry spent a lot of his time guarding 2Gs, while Dray guarded PFs/Cs. While the players playing the classic positions got all jumbled up, what didn't get jumbled were all the skills that had been attributed to certain positions prior. Ball handling, passing, shooting, cutting, rim pressure, on/off ball defense, post defense, perimeter defense, etc. Every 5 man lineup still needs a good balance of these on the court at any given time. We used to have expectations about the grouping of these skill sets based on a player's size. That is now out the window.
Good points. We also have to remember that today's teams play zone defense at times, and there was a time that was an illegal defense. So there's another example of how rule changes over time affect player roles.
That's true. Math changed the landscape too when someone figured out that hitting .333% of 3s was the same as hitting .50% of 2s. What has been overlooked is that more misses (shooting 3s) creates more misses, thus more transition opportunities for opponent. I'm still a believer in the 2-point shot, especially in the playoffs and I hope we don't go down the 3-point shot rabbit hole and convincing ourselves that there is a championship down that hole.
I also am still a believer in the 2-point shot, and not just layups. If guys like Trayce, JK, and Loon could nail short-midrange jumpers consistently, it would open up a lot more scoring possibilities. Remember how Livingston used to chip in with that deadly turnaround? He didn't need to score big numbers, just sink that shot at the right time. And when the 3s aren't falling, rather than continuing to bomb away until we're in a hole, stepping in to shoot a midrange 2 can get a shooter going.
preaching to the choir!
In an injury free world, I think this is the rotation with the highest two-way ceiling. It won't happen for multiple reasons, I know. Tried to mimic last year, where a lot of guys were in the mid-20s with a few in the 15-20 range.
PG: Steph - 32, Podz - 16
SG: Melton - 24, Moody - 16, Podz - 8
SF: Wiggins - 20, GP2 - 12, JK - 12, Moody - 4
PF: Dray - 16, JK - 20, Wiggins - 12
C: TJD - 24, Dray - 12, Looney - 12
Steph - 32, Wiggins - 32, JK - 32, Dray - 28, Melton - 24, TJD - 24, Podz - 24, Moody - 20, GP2 - 12, Looney - 12
Hield and Anderson get DNPs. Probably biased against them bc they are new. Anderson could take minutes from Looney. Hield maybe from GP2 if more shooting is needed. If Dray can play more 5, could cut into TJD or push Looney to DNP.
Steph and Dray limited minutes to keep them as healthy as possible. Obviously if Wiggins is last years version his minutes would drop. Could see Melton getting more minutes, maybe running point a little.
Just early training camp musings...
I’d probably make GP2 the “as needed” guy and give those minutes to Hield or Waters. With Melton, Wiggins, Moody, JK, Draymond, TJD and Looney all getting minutes, GP2’s defense isn’t as valuable and needed as it was previously. Hield’s shooting, especially when Steph rests, will be of greater value.
A Podz/Hield backcourt is pretty brutal defensively, esp at the POA. I think Hield could play with Melton but other than that it's hard to fit him in.
If you had Wiggins, Dray and TJD out there with them, I think they’d do fine. Podz isn’t a defensive slouch and Hield impressed me with his effort on Saturday far more than I was expecting.
To add, Podz and Hield are both better defenders than CP3 or Klay.
SloMo will get some minutes at the 4 and maybe the 5. Hield and maybe Waters will get time at the 2/3. I'm not so sure Wiggs and JK will get 32 each although that's reasonable; maybe more like 27-28, comparable to what you've given Dray. Plus there will be rest games for the older guys and inevitable injuries so guys will pick up minutes there. Health is especially a question for GP2.
I’ve found this series fun and totally reasonable. Perfect? Of course not, but for sure I couldn’t produce something even remotely as good.
But this has gotten me thinking about the “fairness” of comparing across eras. So - if you did this again, but drew a line to only consider the modern era, where would you draw it? My first guess is 1979/80 (first year of the 3 point shot). Sure, the 80s were very different from the 2010s, but fundamentally pretty similar? I didn’t start watching until the 90s, and even then mostly just watched the playoffs.
The other issue is evaluating a player who’s career straddles whatever season you choose as the cutoff. If you use 79/80 as the beginning of the “modern era” and a player played from 74 to 84, does half of his career get discarded as irrelevant ?
The ABA merger, 3 pt line, and start of free agency all are huge changes, and definitely make me think of the NBA before 1975 as incomparable to the NBA after 1980.
I don't feel there's a good cutoff at all. I don't even feel comfortable comparing 2010 to 2020.
If I had access to the data, I'd do something like the following.
For each stat that I'm interested in, a player's value in that stat is relative to the rest of the league for a given season (like Adjusted Shooting in bballref). So for example, if a player averaged 80 FT% for the season they'd receive a different score if league avg was 80% vs 75%.
And so for a given career, you'd average or sum up these "normalized" season stats to get a final score.
(That said, I also have enjoyed this series.)
I've thought about this too. Smarter people than I will come up with more nuanced (better) answers, but I' decided that the "modern" era started after the ABA/NBA merger. So 1976.
Start of 3 pt shot is good too. Also has the advantage that 1980 is the start of the Magic/Bird era.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_ELWaJkITA
Brandin Podziemski post-practice shooting workout
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDC8WlEwH0Y
A bunch of guys shooting after practice (Draymond, GP2, Anderson, Melton, Waters)
The amazing part of that video is that Draymond makes like 90% of his 3s, way more than anybody else.
Not that impressive, lol… how is he getting minutes over Moody, who outshoots Steph in his drills?
1) Just a small window that this channel somehow has, who knows how these guys are actually shooting in practice day in and day out. Moody and Curry seemed to go shot for shot in that other video I thought, wouldn't say he outshot Curry necessarily. If someone is really bored they could count but I don't think it's that important lol.
2) I get the sense that Podz is the type of guy who thrives off of competition, like a Jauan Jennings. Maybe the empty gym shooting practice doesn't get the juices flowing.
3) I don't think anyone on the team is challenging Podz for the backup PG minutes, seems like he has those locked up and that's probably 15-18 minutes a game without any other minutes added on.
4) Podz is far ahead of Moody when it comes to being on the ball imo. I think Moody is a better off ball player but last season with all of the ballhandlers being small guards (other than Draymond), there were times (specifically when Draymond was suspended) where Moody was tough to play. I think the Anderson pick up was huge for the Warriors as a "Draymond backup" and would hope that finally having that extra ballhandling with size will allow Kerr to opt for more shooting+defense elsewhere in the lineup. Tbh I think Anderson is going to be their best signing since 2022, but I think they may need to tweak the roster and find a stretch big first to really unlock his utility.
Jauan Jennings? The 4th year player who averages 2 catches/game? We're comparing players to him?
never thought of the draymond suspension affecting other people's minutes (particularly moody). good point.
Ask Kerr
Pining for the Fjords
Pining for the fjords?????! :-)
Pining for the Bench more like it :P
I mean the genuine answer is Podz is better at ball-handling. And Kerr wants secondary ball-handlers outside of Draymond.
And that Podz is more aggressive on rebounding, blowing up plays, taking charges, etc. He does all the little things to the max. MM does all the little things better than JK, but not better than Podz. IOW, there's a reason why Podz was second on the team in +/- after Steph last year.
I must admit after watching film of Bob Cousy play it creates an odd feeling listing him as better than I Thomas, J Kidd and the like.😊 But I understand the survey reasons.
I wonder if in the year 2085 fans will look at Curry and Lebron like we look at a Cousy. I think not because I am thinking there are limits to what a human body can do and Lebron, GA and the like are probably somewhat close.
Basketball greatness (and in other sports) is not just about visible physical athletic ability.
Bob Cousy ran championship teams as a "point" or lead/playmaking ballhandler.
He was very successful in controlling the offense and using his vision and knowledge of the game (both teammates and opponents) to the supreme advantage for his Celtics team.
I can remember as a very young child seeing him play on TV and he also had an obvious "pizzaz" (that others at that time did not show) to his game especially with passing, but also in his overall courtmanship in making winning basketball plays.
Hard for me to say he could be overrated.
Judge players not by how they would fare in different eras, but how they fared in their own eras against their peers.
Also sometimes you can see an old timer's influence on later players and on the game, whether direct or indirect, and that's an indicator of their importance, regardless of "ranking." Watch Cousy, then watch Maravich; different eras, different players, but there sure seems to be a straight line from Cousy to the Pistol with regard to showmanship and passing. We know Elgin Baylor inspired Dr J. The league changed rules because of Wilt. Today it's Steph's shooting and movement influencing a whole generation of young players.
Well said. You gotta crawl before you can walk, a lot of the moves/techniques we see today were built sequentially over time off of the moves/techniques of the past greats.
By 1950’s standards, my online comments are very witty. By today’s standards, not so much.
You're the GOAT in every era
I said I get the survey. I just still find it comical watching Cousy, the ball handling wizard, dribble out the clock only using his right hand. I am not positive he was proficient using his left hand and would have to watch some clips to find out. Those were the days my friend and I’m glad they did end😊
Cousy could dribble with his left hand but rarely did so. He could score and pass with either hand but certainly favored the right.
The traveling and especially carrying rules were enforced wildly differently back then, to where every single crossover you see today would be considered a carry. Thinking Basketball did a really cool video looking at the differences in rule enforcement, and considering how comically strict they were back then I too am glad we dont have to watch that era
It's also interesting watching all the old footage where players dribble without putting the hand on the side of the ball (and definitely nowhere under it).
I'm under the impression he dribbled with one hand as well lol, but back then I don't really know how much emphasis there was in training your off hand the way there is today
…to a point. Sure people are faster and stronger now, but the league is now more elite than ever. It draws athletes from all over the world and very few of the best basketball players in the world are going to choose other professions because they pay better.
And I absolutely refuse to use that “against their peers” methodology for baseball players who played prior prior to players of color being allowed to join.
If you don't use "against their peers," you end up with meaningless conclusions because baseball, being older, has evolved even more than basketball. How do you compare across eras when in one era foul balls weren't strikes, pitchers threw under hand, the curve ball was new and was the only breaking ball, and it took five balls for a walk? How do you compare between the Dead Ball era, when you could win a home run title with 5 homers and gloves barely covered the hand, and just 10 years afterward when batting numbers were sky high, several sluggers were hitting 50+ homers in a season, the ball was different, strategies were different, larger and padded gloves were used. It gets easier to compare later, when changes were fewer, but then we get the modern era with modern training methods and metrics.
I see your points. My 2 cents: as a cricket tragic, Don Bradman is the most statistically dominant outlier in sports*. (He would "average" around 60-70 ppg if he played basketball).
When modern folk scoff because he played in a different Era (1930/40's) I ask them, "Well why didn't anyone else manage to do any where near as close to what he did?"
Judging by their peers is the only benchmark we have.
Wayne Gretzky is the most stastically dominant outlier in sports. Nobody is even in the realm of his top records
I did put an asterix there :)
And if you take The Great One's total records it would be hard to argue against.
However, where Bradman is the Outlier's Outlier is in his career batting average (or points per game, or goals/assists per game, etc.)
Bradman’s 99.94 would be roughly 4-5 standard deviations above the mean of elite cricketers: 50 runs
Gretzky’s career points per game of 1.92 would place him approximately 2-3 standard deviations above the mean: 1.25 ppg.
Yep. In baseball, the equivalent would be Babe Ruth. In 1920, generally considered the first season of the lively ball era, he hit 54 homers. No entire team in the American League (except Ruth's Yankees of course) hit that many. Only one NL team (the Phillies, 64 HRs) hit more than the Babe alone. He also led both leagues in runs, runs batted in, on base %, and some modern stats (OPS, OPS+). Now THAT is dominance.
Oh yeah, and he hit .376, which did NOT lead the league, which points out again the difference in eras. And he was better in 1921.
Perhaps fair to say that Babe was sort of like the Steph Curry of baseball in that, like Steph with the 3pt shot, it sort of took his extreme outlier proficiency to drive home what should have been the obvious fact that the HR was the most valuable play in the sport. And once each player made the math undeniable, it ushered in a more or less immediate revolution in how the game was played. (Yet, being great, both players remained dominant even after the rest of the league ‘caught up.’)
The real point is it's meaningless to talk about what Cousy could do today because he would be a different player. If you leveled the court, so to speak, giving him the advantages of modern training and time to practice the modern game... but it's impossible to do that or to project it. (He's 96 years old, too, so there's that, but we're assuming a prime Cousy. 😊)
The core issue is the premise itself: You simply can't rank players in a valid way across such a large span of time in a game that develops and changes so much.
I've seen almost all of these guys except the oldest (never saw Mikan except short film clips), and going by eyeball and dominance, I'd put Oscar Robertson much higher than this. I don't care that he only won one title because it's a team game, and his Royals teams didn't have enough talent, although they did have some. He was beyond amazing and was in the top 5 in MVP voting for his first 9 (!) seasons in a row. Going by eyeball test, he was MUCH better than, say Jason Kidd, it's not close. I'd put him above a lot of people listed above him but again, it's impossible to really compare when Big O played before the 3-pointer was a thing, before a bunch of rules changes and changes in the style of play. We also get into different positions, comparing smalls to bigs in different eras.
So the entire concept is just too flawed to take seriously.
As the youngsters decry how LeBron, at only 6’9” and 260 pounds, could ever be considered anything but a smallish point guard with a worthless sub-43% 3pt shot, we will empathize with the Cousy fans.
I imagine at some point, fans will look at '15-16 Unanimous and wonder why defenses had no clue how to guard the three point line and put an asterisk on that MVP season.
The NBA GM survey is out if you want something to get mad about
https://www.nba.com/news/2024-25-nba-gm-survey
Can't believe the Elam ending didn't get more love in the final question.
For an aging 36 year old, it’s nice to see Steph still get first place ranking in few categories.
Lol, Klay’s move to Dallas didn’t even make the top five.
Two annual reminders about this list:
1) It is not likely that the actual GMs are doing these surveys
2) "GMs" aren't allowed to vote for their own players
And, I'm guessing that when they pass it to their underlings to fill out, they say "don't spend more than an hour on this."
It's fun stuff to talk about, but there isn't much evaluation there, I figure.
Warriors don't get any votes for "most promising young core". Wonder how far down the list you'd have to go before they got a vote, it's a vague question because different people have different definitions of "young" and different definitions of "prospect" (some people might ignore a guy like Anthony Edwards because of how established he is)
All those other "cores" have a young ascending superstar surrounded by multiple young pieces. Dubs don't have a young superstar (yet), or even a player who people think might become a superstar.
In related news, Ant & Ja got votes for "who's gonna have a breakout season", lol. I get that anybody could get better (e.g. Steph in 15/16), but I bet lots of voters don't even consider them eligible for that list.
Yeah it's very unstandardized. For the core question they'd have to at least specify a cutoff age, probably would have to list the players under consideration. Even then I would assume some voters would (wrongly imo) put more emphasis on quantity while others would focus on the top guys.
If there's ambiguity, tho, it drives CLICKZ & MENTIONS!!!!
Interesting Kerr was highly rated but was not listed in the decision making during games.
The only one I have even a slight beef with is the guys who picked Dallas as the most fun team to watch. Not a fan of Igo-Ugo offense, personally.
Otherwise, pretty much as you would expect. We've been dumped out of the play-in two years in a row. And in Dray's case, he got his butt suspended for a 1/4 of a season. So, I'm neither surprised, nor mad, that they don't rate Steph or Dray higher.
Lol who wants to bet who the 1 gm who picked the mavs to win the championship this year is?
Not sure why mad, most of it seems pretty conventional to me. Steph got lots of love. Warriors picked as 8th best in the West (making the playoffs). We all, I think, have higher aspirations for this team, but they're not unreasonable. I guess the only thing that really stood out was the lack of recognition for how impactful Draymond is on the defensive end still, but whatever.
Green’s bad reputation precedes and overshadows whatever positive skills or talents he has.
Sure, if it’s a popularity contest.
To some degree it is, as it is with almost everything. It’s human nature.
Right. "Most Versatile Defender" - not sure why he didn't get at least a little love.
Flailing arms, choke holds, body stomps, groin kicks, heck even straight rights. You don't even see that much versatility in the UFC!
Just finished reading and was going to post basically this exact comment. Nice to see a SloMo mention in there.