Nice comment by Brad Botkin of CBS Sports in regards to Ja Morant "he's virtually indefensible (unless you're Gary Payton II, who could smother a tornado)."
Mavs lose to Knicks, Jazz lose to Cavs. Lakers losing to the Kangz (down 10 with 3 minutes left, still a toss up). Bad day for the west, but good for the Dubs.
Wasn’t watching, but the play-by-play says Westbrook literally took two threes in the last 3 minutes, with the game in the balance and a three not necessary. Bricked both, naturally. Is there a worse decision-making PG in NBA history?
If Lillard is going for surgery, I gotta think the Blazers are getting close to being sellers at the deadline and just outright tanking. McCollum, Nurkic, Covington, Nance, they have a lot of guys I could see teams wanting.
No, Lillard stays put and Portland tries again to build around him. Or they flush the whole thing and trade him. Who has a couple of round 1 picks to trade?
One would think, but they've stayed the course for years, long after the pundits and fans were saying that they needed to make a move. They've got plenty of guys other teams would want, but would they give up anyone?
I think his role as primary wing defender taking the toughest assignment remain unchanged. Offensively, I think if he just keeps doing what he’s been doing, great! He seems like he’d be fine with taking a back seat to Klay, but should see even more open 3’s and easy backdoor cuts.
Not a trade discussion, but a question on my mind is how people would compare this year's team and the dynasty teams. Assuming this year's team at its best so far, how good is it? Obviously the dynasty teams had different configurations, but I'm thinking about how certain player vs. player comparisons seem -- that is, I'm not thinking about how the system is or the overall team impact, etc. So for example, would you value HB or Wiggins more? I'd argue that given all strengths and weaknesses, Wiggins is becoming more valuable. But someone like Otto vs. say Speights; I think Otto is clearly better. Poole is I better than Barbosa but not by that much, really, yet. Livingstone vs. Poole I'll take Poole. Livingstone vs GPII who knows? Curry vs. himself is now worse, Draymond might be now better due to understanding the game. Klay, the jury is out. Iguodala old now. [Leaving KD out of this, no one is as good as him, pretty much ever anywhere]
I think the biggest difference is those teams never seemed to have a long term future like this one. Of course, Steph, Klay and Dray were younger and healthier so it was as big a priority. I’m digging having a great present and bright future. It’s like having your cake and eating it too.
For me, Prime Andre versus Father Time Andre is the difference maker. The bench on the 2022 team is better and deeper than the pre-KD bench, which might offset the Big Three all being older (assumption that Klay will more or less be Klay and Steph will pull his head out of his nether regions come playoffs).
Also prime Bogut should not be forgotten. He was as much of an anchor on defense as Draymond was.
By 2016-17 we also had David West. And Poole may become better than Livingston, he has a ton of potential, but Liv was a savvy veteran, more consistent, had a better midrange shot, and was a better defender.
Yes, Bogut. I miss that. The pre-death lineup days, when Dray was more of a regular forward and Bogey just stopped pretty much everything at the rim, and caught hella lobs.
The biggest advantage those benches had was that they had a much better version of Iguodala. I'd say the current bench is way deeper, but you could argue the bench for like the 2014-2015 team was more top heavy.
The 2018-2019 bench was terrible though regardless of Iguodala's presence.
You can’t really compare them one to one, but this team’s overall supporting cast (GP2, Poole, Porter, JTA, Lee, Bjelica, Kuminga, Moody, Wiseman) is better than that of the 2014-2016 vintages by a country mile, imo.
And Wiggins is better than 2014-16 vintage Harry Barnes, also by a mile.
Much or all of that advantage is given back, however, by the fact that Bogut is better than Looney; the fact that all of the Big 3 were younger and a bit better then; and the fact that Andre was way better then.
Also, the league has caught up to what the Dubs do and teams are more locked in to defending it. Double teaming Steph at half court, knowing our sets: it's hard to keep doing the same thing successfully when people keep scheming and re-scheming to prevent it.
I think that's exactly what mDuo13 meant. Other teams have not only learned the strategies that work to counter the Dubs, they've remade their rosters with a different kind of player, learned to shoot better from distance, learned to switch everything on defense, etc. Hard to maintain an advantage.
Overall I think that could be true, but in terms of contenders I'd disagree. The top teams in the league in 2016 were the Warriors, Cavs, Spurs, and Thunder. I don't think the top teams today are as good. The Warriors won 73 games, the Spurs won 67 games, the Cavs had LeBron in his prime, and the Thunder were the most physical and arguably the most talented of them all.
I feel like the current Warrior competitors in the West are more on the level of like the Clippers that season or something. I think the Bucks are the exception...we'll see about the Nets.
Fair evaluation, I think the overall bench is better as you say. Except that I'm rethinking Livingstone. The more I think about it, the more I think that guy was pretty crucial. Defender, passer, low post threat. We could use peak him right now.
Loved SDot, but he wasn’t *that* crucial if you look at his on-court impact and efficiency numbers.
GP2 plays a slightly different position (more of small big man, where Shaun was more of a tall PG) but over his 700-minute career has been significantly more efficient and impactful on both ends of the floor than Shaun ever was, important as Shaun was.
My impression of Livingston is he was a great 2pt shooter and rarely turned the ball over when running the team. But for sheer entertainment value, Gary Payton, Kid Glove, all day.
Livingston’s initial years were that of backup PG/wing defender. As he lost some of his explosiveness, he became far less of a ball handler/distributor.
I would take Livingston over Poole. It’s not a very clean comparison, but Prime Livingston had handle, offense, and defense. 2023 or 2024 Poole could be a better choice, but this year he’s still developing.
Yeah I actually changed my mind as soon as I wrote it. Livingstone over Poole. Peak Livingstone was a hell of a defender, a very good passing decision maker, and a consisten low post threat. Poole is still earning stripes.
Ok, thinking about trades. I have a longer analysis below, but my basic conclusion is that the only assets that would make sense to trade now are OPJ, GP2, Poole, and possibly the rookies. I'm not saying the Warriors SHOULD trade. But if they do, those are the guys that are most likely to go.
But - it's gotten me thinking about what I'd want in return for a starter. In other words: Wiggins. I figure he's the only one that is even vaguely trade-able. What would actually be an upgrade? I'm thinking a proven big center that can play both offense and defense would be worth it.
It seems that the really good ones are Jokic, Embiid and Gobert. Plus maybe a healthy Anthony Davis. We're not getting any of those players. Sabonis has been putting up pretty gaudy numbers, but every time I watch him play I'm not overwhelmed with greed for him.
No, I don't think a trade that adds a starter to the Dubs is very likely.
I think they should consider trading for a center, unless they’re being truthful about their enthusiasm for Wiseman’s trajectory. The range of Wiseman’s high-side outcomes are more valuable to us than someone like Sabonis or Turner, especially when you’re start talking about including Wiggins.
Jan 12, 2022Liked by Eric Apricot, punk basketball
Rats-O-Rama. I’m hoping for the best, for the Warriors, and for at least a starter or two. I can’t stand sitting at home, with a view of the United Center, knowing that Warriors are just a few miles away. So my husband and I will use the tickets. AND I WILL WEAR MY NEW DNHQ KLAY T-SHIRT!!!
About 18 games into the season I noticed that the league was shooting well below historical average on threes. The league average 3P% was the lowest since the late-90s, if I remember correctly. And more interestingly, the percentages on Open and Wide Open were far below what they had been since '13-14 (no prior data).
There was some discussion around the changes in rules (eg. more contact) impacting shooters and I mentioned the new ball as well (TM2007's comment about the new ball is what made me think about this again). The rule change explanation didn't make sense to me since I was looking at Open and Wide Open shots (ie. no defender nearby).
So it's now a little past the mid-point mark of the season and the numbers are still down significantly, though slightly better than through the first 18 games. This season teams are shooting 33.6% when Open on threes (up from 32.8% at the start of this season) and 37.7% when Wide Open (up from 37.2%).
BBALLBREAKDOWN had a video about Steph recently and he pointed out an interesting thing that defenses have been doing specifically to Curry (but I have a feeling it might not be specific to Steph). What he showed in the video was how defenders were intentionally defending him from behind to bother his shot.
One theory I have is that this /might/ explain the drop in Open/Wide Open percentages because either shooters are getting bothered by the defender they can't see, or a trailing defender is not being picked up as being close to the shooter.
The other theory is that the new ball is actually affecting shooters... could be a combination of boths things.
I feel like curry is either getting bumped on almost every shot or hes flopping to much on 3pt shots, because when contested he almost never has a regular follow through
Looking more closely at the historical numbers again, I guess this season is kind of trending up towards '18-19 (0.338, 0.380) and '14-15 (0.335, 0.381)... I guess I'll check back around game 60.
Yeah... 0.336 & 0.377 are not that far off of historical averages, especially given the normal trend upward as the season goes along and players work off some of that rust. Just need to get Steph on board.
Early subscriber, cops to multiple worst takes ever, will choose basketball over work every time, attended Klay’s 14 3-pointer game. Pleased to meet you!
Happy Klay Week indeed! Be even better if we can go on a little win streak starting tomorrow. Maybe I am putting too much into that Utah game, but I believe these guys can rise to the occasion. They usually do after a loss.
Since Klay can't play back to backs yet, if you all had your choice would you sit him vs the Buck or the Bulls? I'm thinking play him vs Bulls so we can have a fresh scorer. Go with the starting lineup from the Utah game vs the Bucks. Starter Otto has been great this season and it will also give Wiggins more room to be aggressive as the number 2.
So... Steph is officially mortal this year, with a 42/38/91 split and a 59% TS. Any ideas? I don't see much... other than missing shots I'm used to watching him make.
The open shots misses could be from overthinking, though I can't remember him doing the foot shuffle in these last two games. Some have talked about the ball being slippery, which could explain the touch around the rim too maybe. Some brought up him bulking up, but he was big last year. I just believe he will come out of it. Hopefully it will happen soon for him, has to be frustrating.
The only problem with his familiar rotation is that he sits a while in the 4th quarter in regular season games, and if they insist on not putting him in at a 6:30 stoppage, he can even sit till the 4:00 mark. In the playoffs (when Steph's minutes target is 36-39 minutes), he'll come in at the ~9 minute mark of the 4th quarter... which is fine.
Last game’s 4th quarter Steph rotation seemed pretty rough. I’d like to see them try a last 8-9 minutes of the game straight with Steph so he’s in rhythm in the 4th. The later he gets back in the more he seems to press.
Looking ahead I'm not sure if Jazz being the 4th seed under Memphis is a good thing, it depends if we're the 1st or 2nd seed then. I would want to avoid Memphis in the 2nd round if possible and play Utah instead. Let the Suns take care of them
Warriors are in a tough part of the schedule right now so it's bad timing for Draymond to be out because they could rack up a few Ls, but they did just beat those same Cavs fairly easily without Draymond.
because he's such a good post defender, they've built a roster and scheme that funnels offenses towards the basket. It's mostly ok with Gobert back their to clean up the scraps, but I think their whole system is a problem
Kerr might have made a more useful statement if instead of rankings he'd used raw numbers. The difference between 3rd and 11th might be minuscule and statistically irrelevant - "random" in other words. Had he said, "we've regressed by a statistically significant amount in turnovers, TSP, and some real measure of "quality of shots"" we could have a useful conversation. Otherwise, read a little about Demming's "red bead experiment" - fluctuations in performance are normal and often due to "system effects" (e.g, playing better teams, more travel, missing players) and not important changes in underlying individual action....
I get your point, although I think Kerr is just trying to nudge his team a bit with a "headline grabber", and isn't sitting there running t-tests to check for statistical significance in their regression.
More likely he is going through the film and be like "See you guys f'ed up this play, and this one, and this one too, and Nemanja for the love of god just shoot it", then breaks a clipboard for emphasis.
LOL. Agree. The dialogue with his players is what counts, not some random sound-bite for the media and fans. I've somehow gotten a bee in my bonnet (although there is snow and no bees right now, and I wear hats, not bonnets) about using rankings to measure all kinds of things where random effects blur reality. Kerr should have said, "we were one of the top offensive teams and our performance has been in the bottom the last few games (or, now, we're just average)".
> Kerr might have made a more useful statement if instead of rankings he'd used raw numbers
Actually, in a league that's constantly mixing and matching opponents against teams that are going through hot or cold streak, it could easily be argued that where you fall within the spectrum is at least as important as base performance numbers
Exactly my point - it's all rather random. I'd have preferred, "we were one of the top offensive teams and we've dropped to the middle." Makes the same point without the fake accuracy of "we're 11th."
Your comment pre-supposes that Kerr cares about his statements 'usefulness' in terms of how you described it. He's giving soundbites, in part out of obligation, to reporters that don't care to have a nuanced discussion. In that regard, I'm sure he feels his comments meet his threshold of 'useful'.
For a basketball coach, as for many of us, reality is a useful place to begin. Of course, you may be right that Kerr may not care what the media makes of his comments; he is just providing soundbites. Actually, I hope that is the case. Because as a driver of thinking and action, "we went from 3rd to 11th" is pretty useless, but it is approrpriately alarmist as a coach's statement for a writer looking to poke his audience.
But as a fan who wants the best for the Dubs, I hope that Kerr is actually taking a more substantive and rigorous look at his team performance. I have an old "Popovich-Kerr 2020" t-shirt, so in general "in Kerr I trust." I just think comments about a team's place is often meaningless when described in terms of rankings. If a team is #1 in defense by 1/10th point per game, does it matter if the team is #1 or #2 (of #10, if they only allow teams to score 2/10ths of a point more)?
I see no possible world where Steve Kerr and his staff take a cursory shallow look at numbers and have no idea how to use them. I also see no possible world where the things Coach Kerr, or any coach really, says to the media are truly reflective of what they are working on when the cameras and mics aren’t on.
As for your final question, I could argue it does matter since confidence is a thing and some players may hear “we’re the #1 defence” and gain confidence in their own defending.
Kerr, like any good coach, wants the team to focus on things they can control. Choosing to shoot open shots and passing out of bad shots is something they can control. "Making more shots" is not... unless somebody has clear mechanics issues to work on.
That said, Curry is:
1. Missing all types of shots
2. A unicorn that historically has made an obscene amount of low quality shots
I know it’s not a popular opinion and we still have time until the trade deadline. All possibilities should be at least considered. Buying low on Ben Simmons could make this team better.
Simmons will play somewhere, somehow. Maybe not til next year but it will happen. And that team will probably be better with him. But I don’t want him anywhere near the Dubs.
There is no indication that Philly has lowered its asking price for Simmons. In fact the feeling seems to be that the price has actually gone up as the deadline approaches.
Trades always surprise me. Teams know a lot more than I do.
But it seems like the Dubs’ plan is ‘add Klay and Wiseman to add offense and give all our shooters more space.’ Still. Early returns on Klay are very good.
Jan 13, 2022·edited Jan 13, 2022Liked by punk basketball
What would you consider "buying low"? Not trying to be snarky or anything... just wondering because I haven't heard about Simmons' trade value being lower.
I would consider Wiggins and 2 future protected 1st to be low. Or if we could get dame in a 3 team trade I would consider wiggins and 1 of our lottery picks. We just got Klay back and I would give it some time to see how he fits.but the trade deadline is coming all options should be at least discussed
- Emotionally: it would be catastrophic for both the team and the fan base. Why inflict that on themselves?
- Objectively: Klay has just returned from major, possibly career ending, injuries. He has shown promise in a couple of games but pretty much everyone is holding their breaths every time he jumps. Trading him now would be an idiotic 'sell low' kind of move. The Dubs' owners are a bunch of finance guys, they know all about 'buy low, sell high'.
- Who are the 'buy low sell high' chips we could throw on the table and see how the dice roll? Porter, GP2, Poole all come to mind. Mayyyyybe Quinndary.
- Who does that leave? JTA and Looney are system guys, so probably not that interesting. Lee and Bjeli have been underperforming. Andre is old. Wiseman is returning from injury as well with a lot of question marks. Moody and Kuminga are both pretty interesting, not essential now, possibly upgradeable.
- Steph, Dray, are cornerstones of the franchise. They don't get moved as long as we are trying to win championships. Wiggins is trade-able but very hard to upgrade.
Conclusion: when Dubs management is talking to other teams, they are seeing if they can get anything crucial for some combo of Porter, GP2, Poole and the rookies. About the only gap in the team I could see would be a very able center. We've discussed Sabonis and Turner a lot. I could see some of our expendables being packaged for someone like that.
Would it be a good idea? I doubt it, but I am hopeful Wiseman will actually have positive impact this year and I love GP2. Porter & Poole are both helpful (though less so with a healthy Klay) and I want to love the rookies. If the team stands pat on Wiseman, it means they know things that we don't (i.e. his health, developing skills, etc.).
Would be tragic for me. In Phila last year often Simmons stayed in dunk spot off the ball for entire quarter not even partecipating in offense. Please leave him there
Probably translates to ~1 point/game by shot quality lost there? Not fair to count the reduced FGA, which could be a result of slower games or turnovers, neither of which count toward shot quality.
Over the year, teams are figuring out the Warriors plays... like they always do. Need to find some better counters... like we always do. But we've also played a bunch of tough teams since Dec. 20. Schedule should relent in a bit.
Yea 1.11 points per game lost is what I roughly calculated factoring our eFG% in each quality bucket. That alone isn't the problem but I thought the differences on each end of the spectrum was enough to count as supporting evidence for what Kerr is saying.
EDIT: It's actually 2.06 points per game... which actually is kind of significant. The difference between 3rd place and 11th place in points-per-100 is 2.1.
Data source was from the links below. I moved my data into an anonymous google sheet and fixed my calculation for lost points and I was off originally... we're actually losing 2.06 points per game!
Nice comment by Brad Botkin of CBS Sports in regards to Ja Morant "he's virtually indefensible (unless you're Gary Payton II, who could smother a tornado)."
Great to see GPII get some props!
Mavs lose to Knicks, Jazz lose to Cavs. Lakers losing to the Kangz (down 10 with 3 minutes left, still a toss up). Bad day for the west, but good for the Dubs.
Lebron scores again, Lakers down by 2. Then no more scoring for them as the next 4 shots are taken & missed by Westbrook, Bradley, Monk and Monk.
Nice work Kangz! Holding on to the victory!
Note to Lakers coaching staff: Give Lebron the ball.
Wasn’t watching, but the play-by-play says Westbrook literally took two threes in the last 3 minutes, with the game in the balance and a three not necessary. Bricked both, naturally. Is there a worse decision-making PG in NBA history?
the gift that keeps giving
The brick that keeps bricking...
Ugly.
But what about all the triple doubles?
🤦♂️
Lebron assist, Lebron layup, Lebron block. That guy is a pest.
If Lillard is going for surgery, I gotta think the Blazers are getting close to being sellers at the deadline and just outright tanking. McCollum, Nurkic, Covington, Nance, they have a lot of guys I could see teams wanting.
Of those four, the only one I would want would be Nance as a bench piece. But who would go to create a spot? On second thought, nevermind...
Many ways to rebuild. I wonder which path they will choose.
I support the path where they donate Lillard to the Warriors.
Ouch. What would they do with him?
No, Lillard stays put and Portland tries again to build around him. Or they flush the whole thing and trade him. Who has a couple of round 1 picks to trade?
One would think, but they've stayed the course for years, long after the pundits and fans were saying that they needed to make a move. They've got plenty of guys other teams would want, but would they give up anyone?
Interested to know what you'll think Wiggins role is now that Klay is back to being Klay?
Anything between the Harrison Barnes role and the Kevin Durant role.
I think his role as primary wing defender taking the toughest assignment remain unchanged. Offensively, I think if he just keeps doing what he’s been doing, great! He seems like he’d be fine with taking a back seat to Klay, but should see even more open 3’s and easy backdoor cuts.
Not a trade discussion, but a question on my mind is how people would compare this year's team and the dynasty teams. Assuming this year's team at its best so far, how good is it? Obviously the dynasty teams had different configurations, but I'm thinking about how certain player vs. player comparisons seem -- that is, I'm not thinking about how the system is or the overall team impact, etc. So for example, would you value HB or Wiggins more? I'd argue that given all strengths and weaknesses, Wiggins is becoming more valuable. But someone like Otto vs. say Speights; I think Otto is clearly better. Poole is I better than Barbosa but not by that much, really, yet. Livingstone vs. Poole I'll take Poole. Livingstone vs GPII who knows? Curry vs. himself is now worse, Draymond might be now better due to understanding the game. Klay, the jury is out. Iguodala old now. [Leaving KD out of this, no one is as good as him, pretty much ever anywhere]
I think the biggest difference is those teams never seemed to have a long term future like this one. Of course, Steph, Klay and Dray were younger and healthier so it was as big a priority. I’m digging having a great present and bright future. It’s like having your cake and eating it too.
I mean, back in 2015 then Steph Klay Dray WERE the future. I remember when we were one of the youngest teams in the NBA.
For me, Prime Andre versus Father Time Andre is the difference maker. The bench on the 2022 team is better and deeper than the pre-KD bench, which might offset the Big Three all being older (assumption that Klay will more or less be Klay and Steph will pull his head out of his nether regions come playoffs).
Also prime Bogut should not be forgotten. He was as much of an anchor on defense as Draymond was.
By 2016-17 we also had David West. And Poole may become better than Livingston, he has a ton of potential, but Liv was a savvy veteran, more consistent, had a better midrange shot, and was a better defender.
Yes, Bogut. I miss that. The pre-death lineup days, when Dray was more of a regular forward and Bogey just stopped pretty much everything at the rim, and caught hella lobs.
The biggest advantage those benches had was that they had a much better version of Iguodala. I'd say the current bench is way deeper, but you could argue the bench for like the 2014-2015 team was more top heavy.
The 2018-2019 bench was terrible though regardless of Iguodala's presence.
You can’t really compare them one to one, but this team’s overall supporting cast (GP2, Poole, Porter, JTA, Lee, Bjelica, Kuminga, Moody, Wiseman) is better than that of the 2014-2016 vintages by a country mile, imo.
And Wiggins is better than 2014-16 vintage Harry Barnes, also by a mile.
Much or all of that advantage is given back, however, by the fact that Bogut is better than Looney; the fact that all of the Big 3 were younger and a bit better then; and the fact that Andre was way better then.
I think the biggest difference is that the rest of the league is, on average, way better than it was back then.
Also, the league has caught up to what the Dubs do and teams are more locked in to defending it. Double teaming Steph at half court, knowing our sets: it's hard to keep doing the same thing successfully when people keep scheming and re-scheming to prevent it.
I don't think that scheme is going to work once (if?) Klay gets back into the groove.
I think that's exactly what mDuo13 meant. Other teams have not only learned the strategies that work to counter the Dubs, they've remade their rosters with a different kind of player, learned to shoot better from distance, learned to switch everything on defense, etc. Hard to maintain an advantage.
Yes agree, but isn't that what our coaching staff are paid the big bucks to counter? I thought we were supposed to be light years ahead!
Agreed. That too.
(Though I’m pretty sure the league, on average, was .500 back then, too.)
Overall I think that could be true, but in terms of contenders I'd disagree. The top teams in the league in 2016 were the Warriors, Cavs, Spurs, and Thunder. I don't think the top teams today are as good. The Warriors won 73 games, the Spurs won 67 games, the Cavs had LeBron in his prime, and the Thunder were the most physical and arguably the most talented of them all.
I feel like the current Warrior competitors in the West are more on the level of like the Clippers that season or something. I think the Bucks are the exception...we'll see about the Nets.
Agree. We have to consider opponents in order to go get the trophy (and health is the difference maker)
Fair evaluation, I think the overall bench is better as you say. Except that I'm rethinking Livingstone. The more I think about it, the more I think that guy was pretty crucial. Defender, passer, low post threat. We could use peak him right now.
Loved SDot, but he wasn’t *that* crucial if you look at his on-court impact and efficiency numbers.
GP2 plays a slightly different position (more of small big man, where Shaun was more of a tall PG) but over his 700-minute career has been significantly more efficient and impactful on both ends of the floor than Shaun ever was, important as Shaun was.
Isn’t Porter a pretty reasonable facsimile?
My impression of Livingston is he was a great 2pt shooter and rarely turned the ball over when running the team. But for sheer entertainment value, Gary Payton, Kid Glove, all day.
Livingston’s initial years were that of backup PG/wing defender. As he lost some of his explosiveness, he became far less of a ball handler/distributor.
I would take Livingston over Poole. It’s not a very clean comparison, but Prime Livingston had handle, offense, and defense. 2023 or 2024 Poole could be a better choice, but this year he’s still developing.
Yeah I actually changed my mind as soon as I wrote it. Livingstone over Poole. Peak Livingstone was a hell of a defender, a very good passing decision maker, and a consisten low post threat. Poole is still earning stripes.
Cook > Chiozza
Poole is the relevant comp for Cook, tho. And Poole >>> Cook.
In Phase 2 True dat
Ok, thinking about trades. I have a longer analysis below, but my basic conclusion is that the only assets that would make sense to trade now are OPJ, GP2, Poole, and possibly the rookies. I'm not saying the Warriors SHOULD trade. But if they do, those are the guys that are most likely to go.
But - it's gotten me thinking about what I'd want in return for a starter. In other words: Wiggins. I figure he's the only one that is even vaguely trade-able. What would actually be an upgrade? I'm thinking a proven big center that can play both offense and defense would be worth it.
Looking at stats (and please substitute your preferred stat) like http://insider.espn.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/position/c
It seems that the really good ones are Jokic, Embiid and Gobert. Plus maybe a healthy Anthony Davis. We're not getting any of those players. Sabonis has been putting up pretty gaudy numbers, but every time I watch him play I'm not overwhelmed with greed for him.
No, I don't think a trade that adds a starter to the Dubs is very likely.
I think they should consider trading for a center, unless they’re being truthful about their enthusiasm for Wiseman’s trajectory. The range of Wiseman’s high-side outcomes are more valuable to us than someone like Sabonis or Turner, especially when you’re start talking about including Wiggins.
Steve Kerr said Green won’t play the next two games, and it’s unlikely he’ll fly in for the Minny game.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Con_Chron/status/1481352306805420034
So no Green for the road trip.
We lost 3 of 4?!? This team is trash! We should have picked LaMelo! Fire the manager!!
Wait, this isn’t a Bucks site? Nevermind, carry on.
I'm predicting that Kerr will have all of the players that are available to play against the Bucks tomorrow evening, then rest the starters on Friday.
Rats-O-Rama. I’m hoping for the best, for the Warriors, and for at least a starter or two. I can’t stand sitting at home, with a view of the United Center, knowing that Warriors are just a few miles away. So my husband and I will use the tickets. AND I WILL WEAR MY NEW DNHQ KLAY T-SHIRT!!!
aww man, well at least you will look damn good!
I totally immediately thought of you guys as soon as I saw the news. But hey... Klay and Steph!
Wait, you received your shirt already? Dang...
Yes, today!
REPRESENT
TNT on Thursday and ESPN on Friday. Curses! Can't ESPN and/or TNT leave the Warriors alone?
The curse of being in demand
About 18 games into the season I noticed that the league was shooting well below historical average on threes. The league average 3P% was the lowest since the late-90s, if I remember correctly. And more interestingly, the percentages on Open and Wide Open were far below what they had been since '13-14 (no prior data).
There was some discussion around the changes in rules (eg. more contact) impacting shooters and I mentioned the new ball as well (TM2007's comment about the new ball is what made me think about this again). The rule change explanation didn't make sense to me since I was looking at Open and Wide Open shots (ie. no defender nearby).
So it's now a little past the mid-point mark of the season and the numbers are still down significantly, though slightly better than through the first 18 games. This season teams are shooting 33.6% when Open on threes (up from 32.8% at the start of this season) and 37.7% when Wide Open (up from 37.2%).
Historical averages going back chronologically:
Open: 0.356 0.345 0.338 0.349 0.352 0.342 0.335 0.349
Wide Open: 0.390 0.384 0.380 0.388 0.382 0.384 0.381 0.391
---
BBALLBREAKDOWN had a video about Steph recently and he pointed out an interesting thing that defenses have been doing specifically to Curry (but I have a feeling it might not be specific to Steph). What he showed in the video was how defenders were intentionally defending him from behind to bother his shot.
One theory I have is that this /might/ explain the drop in Open/Wide Open percentages because either shooters are getting bothered by the defender they can't see, or a trailing defender is not being picked up as being close to the shooter.
The other theory is that the new ball is actually affecting shooters... could be a combination of boths things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n14-krkSvww (BBALLBREAKDOWN vid)
I feel like curry is either getting bumped on almost every shot or hes flopping to much on 3pt shots, because when contested he almost never has a regular follow through
Looking more closely at the historical numbers again, I guess this season is kind of trending up towards '18-19 (0.338, 0.380) and '14-15 (0.335, 0.381)... I guess I'll check back around game 60.
Yeah... 0.336 & 0.377 are not that far off of historical averages, especially given the normal trend upward as the season goes along and players work off some of that rust. Just need to get Steph on board.
Is Klay going play in the bucks or bulls game?
Yes.
(he will play in one of them)
Lol correct.
We might get early notice today, but I bet it wont be announced till tomorrow
Also, for the record, we are all voting for Chicago, because Janet is going to that one
On behalf of people too new here, who is this Janet that you speak of with such reverence?
Early subscriber, cops to multiple worst takes ever, will choose basketball over work every time, attended Klay’s 14 3-pointer game. Pleased to meet you!
The honour is all mine, Janet of the Early Scribes :)
Yes, send those hopeful thoughts eastward!
I’ll be the one with the Klay boating T-shirt!
Happy Klay Week indeed! Be even better if we can go on a little win streak starting tomorrow. Maybe I am putting too much into that Utah game, but I believe these guys can rise to the occasion. They usually do after a loss.
Since Klay can't play back to backs yet, if you all had your choice would you sit him vs the Buck or the Bulls? I'm thinking play him vs Bulls so we can have a fresh scorer. Go with the starting lineup from the Utah game vs the Bucks. Starter Otto has been great this season and it will also give Wiggins more room to be aggressive as the number 2.
So... Steph is officially mortal this year, with a 42/38/91 split and a 59% TS. Any ideas? I don't see much... other than missing shots I'm used to watching him make.
Not official yet
"Steph HAS officially BEEN mortal SO FAR this year". Is that more accurate?
The committee has convened and come to a decision:
We'll allow it.
Heck, I’ll allow “Steph is mortal” without the time stamp qualifiers.
Why do you hate Steph so much?
The open shots misses could be from overthinking, though I can't remember him doing the foot shuffle in these last two games. Some have talked about the ball being slippery, which could explain the touch around the rim too maybe. Some brought up him bulking up, but he was big last year. I just believe he will come out of it. Hopefully it will happen soon for him, has to be frustrating.
I did notice Steph had a different rotation yesterday. Maybe they will revert him back to his more familiar rotation.
The only problem with his familiar rotation is that he sits a while in the 4th quarter in regular season games, and if they insist on not putting him in at a 6:30 stoppage, he can even sit till the 4:00 mark. In the playoffs (when Steph's minutes target is 36-39 minutes), he'll come in at the ~9 minute mark of the 4th quarter... which is fine.
Last game’s 4th quarter Steph rotation seemed pretty rough. I’d like to see them try a last 8-9 minutes of the game straight with Steph so he’s in rhythm in the 4th. The later he gets back in the more he seems to press.
Every game not just the playoffs. We know he can handle full quarters after all.
Ugh boo. Now they will be unhappy and come back on Friday all motivated.
I think the Bulls are looking ahead of the Nets game. They seem to be more worried about the Warriors than the Nets.
Seems legit.
What the … it was 71-71!
47-10 Nets since then.
Bulls = frauds.
Derrick Jones Jr. is out due to right knee injury.
Looking ahead I'm not sure if Jazz being the 4th seed under Memphis is a good thing, it depends if we're the 1st or 2nd seed then. I would want to avoid Memphis in the 2nd round if possible and play Utah instead. Let the Suns take care of them
Wow. Are Jazz really that bad without Gobert?
Teams may be asking a similar question of the Ws if Dray doesn't get back soon.
Warriors are in a tough part of the schedule right now so it's bad timing for Draymond to be out because they could rack up a few Ls, but they did just beat those same Cavs fairly easily without Draymond.
because he's such a good post defender, they've built a roster and scheme that funnels offenses towards the basket. It's mostly ok with Gobert back their to clean up the scraps, but I think their whole system is a problem
Kinda like the gravity of a black hole
So not having Gobert exposes a huge flaw in the Jazz's offense and defense, I assume.
Wire to wire beatdown by the same Cavs team the Warriors toyed with a few days ago. Without Gobert, they’re pretty terrible.
Nice game for old friend Paschall at least (18 pts on 8-11 fga, 7 reb).
Kerr might have made a more useful statement if instead of rankings he'd used raw numbers. The difference between 3rd and 11th might be minuscule and statistically irrelevant - "random" in other words. Had he said, "we've regressed by a statistically significant amount in turnovers, TSP, and some real measure of "quality of shots"" we could have a useful conversation. Otherwise, read a little about Demming's "red bead experiment" - fluctuations in performance are normal and often due to "system effects" (e.g, playing better teams, more travel, missing players) and not important changes in underlying individual action....
I get your point, although I think Kerr is just trying to nudge his team a bit with a "headline grabber", and isn't sitting there running t-tests to check for statistical significance in their regression.
More likely he is going through the film and be like "See you guys f'ed up this play, and this one, and this one too, and Nemanja for the love of god just shoot it", then breaks a clipboard for emphasis.
LOL. Agree. The dialogue with his players is what counts, not some random sound-bite for the media and fans. I've somehow gotten a bee in my bonnet (although there is snow and no bees right now, and I wear hats, not bonnets) about using rankings to measure all kinds of things where random effects blur reality. Kerr should have said, "we were one of the top offensive teams and our performance has been in the bottom the last few games (or, now, we're just average)".
> Kerr might have made a more useful statement if instead of rankings he'd used raw numbers
Actually, in a league that's constantly mixing and matching opponents against teams that are going through hot or cold streak, it could easily be argued that where you fall within the spectrum is at least as important as base performance numbers
Exactly my point - it's all rather random. I'd have preferred, "we were one of the top offensive teams and we've dropped to the middle." Makes the same point without the fake accuracy of "we're 11th."
Your comment pre-supposes that Kerr cares about his statements 'usefulness' in terms of how you described it. He's giving soundbites, in part out of obligation, to reporters that don't care to have a nuanced discussion. In that regard, I'm sure he feels his comments meet his threshold of 'useful'.
For a basketball coach, as for many of us, reality is a useful place to begin. Of course, you may be right that Kerr may not care what the media makes of his comments; he is just providing soundbites. Actually, I hope that is the case. Because as a driver of thinking and action, "we went from 3rd to 11th" is pretty useless, but it is approrpriately alarmist as a coach's statement for a writer looking to poke his audience.
But as a fan who wants the best for the Dubs, I hope that Kerr is actually taking a more substantive and rigorous look at his team performance. I have an old "Popovich-Kerr 2020" t-shirt, so in general "in Kerr I trust." I just think comments about a team's place is often meaningless when described in terms of rankings. If a team is #1 in defense by 1/10th point per game, does it matter if the team is #1 or #2 (of #10, if they only allow teams to score 2/10ths of a point more)?
I see no possible world where Steve Kerr and his staff take a cursory shallow look at numbers and have no idea how to use them. I also see no possible world where the things Coach Kerr, or any coach really, says to the media are truly reflective of what they are working on when the cameras and mics aren’t on.
As for your final question, I could argue it does matter since confidence is a thing and some players may hear “we’re the #1 defence” and gain confidence in their own defending.
Mostly agree with you. But what does "we're #11" convey?
There is room for improvement.
Kerr, like any good coach, wants the team to focus on things they can control. Choosing to shoot open shots and passing out of bad shots is something they can control. "Making more shots" is not... unless somebody has clear mechanics issues to work on.
That said, Curry is:
1. Missing all types of shots
2. A unicorn that historically has made an obscene amount of low quality shots
We still need Curry to be Curry again.
Dray coming back in a few games should help with that at least.
In the meantime, if every game was like his last, Curry would be fine, stat purities aside.
I know it’s not a popular opinion and we still have time until the trade deadline. All possibilities should be at least considered. Buying low on Ben Simmons could make this team better.
Simmons will play somewhere, somehow. Maybe not til next year but it will happen. And that team will probably be better with him. But I don’t want him anywhere near the Dubs.
There is no indication that Philly has lowered its asking price for Simmons. In fact the feeling seems to be that the price has actually gone up as the deadline approaches.
I can't think of a single trade that makes sense, except Simmons for Chiozza, straight up
I'd be willling to throw in one of Fitz or Kirk Lacob (maybe even both).
Trades always surprise me. Teams know a lot more than I do.
But it seems like the Dubs’ plan is ‘add Klay and Wiseman to add offense and give all our shooters more space.’ Still. Early returns on Klay are very good.
Ooh then we could watch Steph fight to get shots with 3 non shooters on the court for the rest of his career. Luv it.
What would you consider "buying low"? Not trying to be snarky or anything... just wondering because I haven't heard about Simmons' trade value being lower.
I would consider Wiggins and 2 future protected 1st to be low. Or if we could get dame in a 3 team trade I would consider wiggins and 1 of our lottery picks. We just got Klay back and I would give it some time to see how he fits.but the trade deadline is coming all options should be at least discussed
Terrible idea.
It is really hard to imagine trading Klay away.
- Emotionally: it would be catastrophic for both the team and the fan base. Why inflict that on themselves?
- Objectively: Klay has just returned from major, possibly career ending, injuries. He has shown promise in a couple of games but pretty much everyone is holding their breaths every time he jumps. Trading him now would be an idiotic 'sell low' kind of move. The Dubs' owners are a bunch of finance guys, they know all about 'buy low, sell high'.
- Who are the 'buy low sell high' chips we could throw on the table and see how the dice roll? Porter, GP2, Poole all come to mind. Mayyyyybe Quinndary.
- Who does that leave? JTA and Looney are system guys, so probably not that interesting. Lee and Bjeli have been underperforming. Andre is old. Wiseman is returning from injury as well with a lot of question marks. Moody and Kuminga are both pretty interesting, not essential now, possibly upgradeable.
- Steph, Dray, are cornerstones of the franchise. They don't get moved as long as we are trying to win championships. Wiggins is trade-able but very hard to upgrade.
Conclusion: when Dubs management is talking to other teams, they are seeing if they can get anything crucial for some combo of Porter, GP2, Poole and the rookies. About the only gap in the team I could see would be a very able center. We've discussed Sabonis and Turner a lot. I could see some of our expendables being packaged for someone like that.
Would it be a good idea? I doubt it, but I am hopeful Wiseman will actually have positive impact this year and I love GP2. Porter & Poole are both helpful (though less so with a healthy Klay) and I want to love the rookies. If the team stands pat on Wiseman, it means they know things that we don't (i.e. his health, developing skills, etc.).
We just need Lil' John as our chief negotiator, he'll make sure they get low.
Shooting's the problem
Let's get Ben Simmons
/s
We have the 2 best shooters ever. Poole .. belly.. and Otto all great shooters too. The shooting problem has only been a problem recently.
Wiggins straight up for Simmons would be a terrible trade according to me
Would be tragic for me. In Phila last year often Simmons stayed in dunk spot off the ball for entire quarter not even partecipating in offense. Please leave him there
Figured this might be a decent proxy to what Kerr is saying... maybe?
As a team: FGA per game vs. Closest Defender
Period / Very Tight / Tight / Open / Wide Open
Up until Dec. 20 / 5.8 / 32.3 / 25.2 / 23.0 (86.3 total FGA)
After Dec. 20 / 7.8 / 31.8 / 25.9 / 19.4 (84.9 total FGA)
Notably, 2 more Very Tight shots... 3.6 fewer Wide Open shots... 1.4 fewer shots in total.
Probably translates to ~1 point/game by shot quality lost there? Not fair to count the reduced FGA, which could be a result of slower games or turnovers, neither of which count toward shot quality.
Over the year, teams are figuring out the Warriors plays... like they always do. Need to find some better counters... like we always do. But we've also played a bunch of tough teams since Dec. 20. Schedule should relent in a bit.
Yea 1.11 points per game lost is what I roughly calculated factoring our eFG% in each quality bucket. That alone isn't the problem but I thought the differences on each end of the spectrum was enough to count as supporting evidence for what Kerr is saying.
EDIT: It's actually 2.06 points per game... which actually is kind of significant. The difference between 3rd place and 11th place in points-per-100 is 2.1.
yo this is nice!! You mind if I quote you on this?
Also, link?
Ooooh! I don't mind at all
Data source was from the links below. I moved my data into an anonymous google sheet and fixed my calculation for lost points and I was off originally... we're actually losing 2.06 points per game!
https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/shots-closest-defender/?Season=2021-22&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&DateFrom=12%2F20%2F2021&TeamID=1610612744&CloseDefDistRange=6%2B%20Feet%20-%20Wide%20Open
https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/shots-closest-defender/?Season=2021-22&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612744&DateTo=12%2F20%2F2021&CloseDefDistRange=6%2B%20Feet%20-%20Wide%20Open
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSKsPtuVCQ-9hxlXTq95uJGIN8RpRP_IkzM3CAvSt8EcNMurwpBnMexr91pggWjrCZc61rqcIkOuKVo/pubhtml?gid=0&single=true
That math includes the points lost from lost FGA too, tho, right?
Does your "hmmm" mean you disagree? There certainly does seem to be some kind of systemic problem, the way it's plagued the team recently.