I remember Kessler Edwards being a guy Ethan Strauss flagged as a good fit for the Warriors back in 2020 (he ended up not declaring for that draft); pegged him as a great fit for the NBA role player skillset
then his draft stock kinda plummeted among even smart draft guys, but here he is… looking like a great NBA role player on the wing!
So this is bordering on blasphemy, but the way Klay was shooting this game, the way Ender was shooting this game, and the way Ender has been shooting all season from the left side, I almost feel like it would have been even better to swing the ball down to Ender and have him take the wide open shot. Almost.
On the other hand the best defense on the issue of if you made the right choice to shoot is if you make it, so I guess it was a good shot by that metric.
Still, I hope they consider passing that ball down to the left wing when it's some better defenders doubling Klay and Ender is open
I can see the logic for Klay to pass it, but I also think it's kind of contrary to the mindset you need to become an NBA player & especially one of the greatest shooters of all time
Klay never thinks he's going to miss a shot, so if he has a shot (and he did)… he's gotta take it, cause he has no thought that he would miss it
I don't understand (not being facetious). You're saying a good shooter should never pass to the open man? or the more open man in this case? The whole Warrior philosophy is to pass up a good shot for a great shot.
What is this Ender thing? Is that a reference to that lamo Orson Scott Card book? If not, then to what? If yes, is this a known thing or a personal thing -- have I been not knowing a nickname everyone knows?
Is it OK if I hate it? I thought it was a terrible book. I've read a lot of bad science fiction but that was a real "and then he woke up" situation. On top of which the author is an outspoken opponent of marriage equality and against homosexuality in general. I'm going to call Wiggins Wiggins.
Since this came up I’d like to vote against Ender and other improvised nicknames, not out of righteousness but just because I hate having to sit there and try to figure out who someone might be talking about via context.
There's quite a lot to unpack in that short post. And none of it is your opinion of the nickname or the book (I am almost the only one I know who actually tries to use it so doubt you're going to upset anyone). I, too, struggle with what to do when a creator of art I like has a troubling belief system. And now I face the issue of weather to continue to use a nickname only I use that I thought was a funny coincidence and "Ender" is a reasonable nickname for an athlete in the face of your obvious suffering at its use plus the apparent PTSD of being subjected to the book. I will have to think on this...
I found "Ender" to be a charming nickname for Wiggins because he does have a penchant for ending plays—both on the offensive end (say, with an authoritative dunk over a former teammate) or on the defensive end (with a blocked shot). The fact that it sounds a bit like his actual name, Andrew, is a nice bit of synchronicity.
But, I also understand how the nickname could come across as an endorsement of Ender's Game and, by extension, Orson Scott Card's distasteful politics. I would hope that we could not automatically link all those things together into one chain of equivalence, but I suppose that's too much to ask for contemporary online discourse.
I find that awesome! Especially because it too acts as a literary reference but this time to an awesome book, "Watership Down," featuring the stalwart Bigwig at power forward for the rabbits.
Hmm. That is kind of a good nickname. Although it suffers from kind of the same problem of needing to be familiar with the book to fully appreciate it. How about Thlayli? Just kidding.
In the typical Klay play, we also have a guy coming up slipping the screen (not Klay) and usually gets ignored. I have to imagine this is some sort of conditioning to keep the defense guessing and when pressure situations come up and they see the same action they're just a split second late too recognize it... perhaps taking one extra half-step in the wrong direction.
Also, kind of funny how Patty was mic'd up about helping Blake on the slip earlier in the game... and they get beat on a slip in crunch time.
And of course JVG spent the entire time out decrying the Nets “not knowing personnel” because “Klay always skips the screen”… sigh. Why do I let them keep triggering me. It’s like I’m forgetting personnel…
when getting in position to 'set' a screen the screeners defender is often presuming the need to switch. By 'slipping' the screen the ball handlers defender sees he does not need to leave his man since the screen is not blocking his path....thus two defenders end up on one player even if for a split moment....all that is needed for the likes of Curry/Klay
It's super helpful to have the old clips to review to set up the current breakdown. Sets the context and explains a lot. Still, having diligently listened to the rationale as to why the Warriors only break out the 1-2 high pnr occasionally so as to maintain surprise, I'm not quite persuaded. It seems like it could be effective much more often, particularly against vulnerable defenses. Like maybe not against Paul George and Kawhi, but if it's Patty Mills and Kyrie offering help, it seems like we could have run the play ten times. Yes the play is less surprising, but it puts the two most lethal guys in great position to either generate a shot or move it on from there -- in this case to Wiggins or Porter as next options...maybe?
I don't know about "ten times" but more than once, sure. That said, breaking it out for the highest-leverage moment when we really needed a bucket was pretty sweet.
Now if we could just convince Coach Kerr that we should save our sole only solitary challenge of the entire game for a higher-leverage moment....... at least we won this one, and it got us an extra possession, so it wasn't the worst challenge he's called for.
I don't know about this rationale... for instance, if you can challenge a play that results in a bucket, shouldn't you just challenge it, and then be 2 points further away from having to deal with a higher-leverage moment later in the game? What if nothing challengeable happens later on, now you're just 2 extra points down?
I think coaches should prioritize using challenges when there’sa clear positive outcome. Hate winning a challenge only to lose the tip and not have gained much.
Even if the result of the challenge is a jump ball that we lose, it can still be a clear positive outcome if it means Steph/Loon/whoever isn't in foul trouble.
Jan 30, 2022·edited Jan 30, 2022Liked by Eric Apricot
They were generating plenty of open looks earlier in the game for both Klay and Steph off different actions, too — they were just bricking all of them. This one looked better cos Klay swished it. :-)
Generally, I trust Kerr to find the right balance of play-calling to keep defenses on their toes and all five (or 15) Warrior players engaged, while maximizing offensive efficiency. We as fans tend to wish he would run more simple, two-man actions involving Steph; and we like to ride him for what often seems like a dogmatic devotion to motion offense and “mixing it up.” One unquantifiable benefit of the Kerr approach that we tend to overlook, tho (in addition to the value of keeping defenses guessing): how much more do the non-Splash players get after it on D when they feel fully engaged in the offense? The Warriors currently have the best defense in the NBA by a wide margin — indeed, one of the best defenses ever relative to league average. Do they kill it on D to the same degree if 3/5ths of the team is generally standing around watching two-man games on offense?
Who knows, but I do think Kerr’s egalitarian, varied approach to offense is at least as much about winning as it is about a dogmatic philosophical or aesthetic preference. And when the chips are down (as in the Klay play in question) he’s never been averse to simplifying matters with simple actions involving his two best players.
Agreed, but I'm sure Kerr would agree that a play that begins as a high 1-2 pnr can quickly involve others. We could have seen a pass to Wiggins here or in a different game situation other ball and player movement. The high pnr doesn't preclude all that other jazzy involved offense we love and makes us play D better.
Kerr has specifically said he runs his offense because when everyone touches the ball on O and has to be together on decisions, it activates everyone's defensive effort and togetherness. Very hard to prove this, but he believes it and it rings true to me psychologically
On the first grade team that I coach, when kids don't touch the ball, they definitely stop playing D and start looking at their feet. And we're all first graders at heart. So I'm with Kerr on this one.
Eh, from my memory, Steph certainly wasn't getting "plenty of open looks". I thought it was notable that he got almost none. Which is why I wasn't as bothered as some by the poor shooting performance. They were on top of him like [choose your favorite metaphor].
I did think both Steph and Klay were really hustling on defense, and while Steph in particular committed some unfortunate fouls, they were the type where he was trying too hard, which I can't really fault him for.
> Generally, I trust Kerr to find the right balance of play-calling to keep defenses on their toes and all five (or 15) Warrior players engaged,
I mean, nobody's perfect, but I agree Kerr does a really good job here.
Saw one replay of the Kyrie foul on Klay where his left hand is gently tugging on Klay's jersey right before Klay trips. Clearly a foul - glad Kyrie admitted it after the game. Also I enjoyed watching Kyrie greet several Dubs players after the game - showed a lot of class there, even if he's a villain in these parts. Of course, maybe they were just telling him how easy the vaccination process is.....
Kyrie had already gotten away with his patented left arm shiver twice in the quarter against unsuspecting Kuminga and also later Steph at midcoast. Kyrie got the call both times, but Klay's strategic trip and fall turned the tables on the Nets.
I remember Kessler Edwards being a guy Ethan Strauss flagged as a good fit for the Warriors back in 2020 (he ended up not declaring for that draft); pegged him as a great fit for the NBA role player skillset
then his draft stock kinda plummeted among even smart draft guys, but here he is… looking like a great NBA role player on the wing!
So this is bordering on blasphemy, but the way Klay was shooting this game, the way Ender was shooting this game, and the way Ender has been shooting all season from the left side, I almost feel like it would have been even better to swing the ball down to Ender and have him take the wide open shot. Almost.
On the other hand the best defense on the issue of if you made the right choice to shoot is if you make it, so I guess it was a good shot by that metric.
Still, I hope they consider passing that ball down to the left wing when it's some better defenders doubling Klay and Ender is open
I can see the logic for Klay to pass it, but I also think it's kind of contrary to the mindset you need to become an NBA player & especially one of the greatest shooters of all time
Klay never thinks he's going to miss a shot, so if he has a shot (and he did)… he's gotta take it, cause he has no thought that he would miss it
I don't understand (not being facetious). You're saying a good shooter should never pass to the open man? or the more open man in this case? The whole Warrior philosophy is to pass up a good shot for a great shot.
What is this Ender thing? Is that a reference to that lamo Orson Scott Card book? If not, then to what? If yes, is this a known thing or a personal thing -- have I been not knowing a nickname everyone knows?
Is it OK if I hate it? I thought it was a terrible book. I've read a lot of bad science fiction but that was a real "and then he woke up" situation. On top of which the author is an outspoken opponent of marriage equality and against homosexuality in general. I'm going to call Wiggins Wiggins.
Since this came up I’d like to vote against Ender and other improvised nicknames, not out of righteousness but just because I hate having to sit there and try to figure out who someone might be talking about via context.
Second.
I know this is a curmudgeonly stance, and I apologize for that
Well, it looks like I am outvoted. I will stop using it (actually I knew it would never catch on. I was just doing it for my own amusement, anyway :)
There's quite a lot to unpack in that short post. And none of it is your opinion of the nickname or the book (I am almost the only one I know who actually tries to use it so doubt you're going to upset anyone). I, too, struggle with what to do when a creator of art I like has a troubling belief system. And now I face the issue of weather to continue to use a nickname only I use that I thought was a funny coincidence and "Ender" is a reasonable nickname for an athlete in the face of your obvious suffering at its use plus the apparent PTSD of being subjected to the book. I will have to think on this...
I found "Ender" to be a charming nickname for Wiggins because he does have a penchant for ending plays—both on the offensive end (say, with an authoritative dunk over a former teammate) or on the defensive end (with a blocked shot). The fact that it sounds a bit like his actual name, Andrew, is a nice bit of synchronicity.
But, I also understand how the nickname could come across as an endorsement of Ender's Game and, by extension, Orson Scott Card's distasteful politics. I would hope that we could not automatically link all those things together into one chain of equivalence, but I suppose that's too much to ask for contemporary online discourse.
I find that awesome! Especially because it too acts as a literary reference but this time to an awesome book, "Watership Down," featuring the stalwart Bigwig at power forward for the rabbits.
Hmm. That is kind of a good nickname. Although it suffers from kind of the same problem of needing to be familiar with the book to fully appreciate it. How about Thlayli? Just kidding.
I remember thinking the same thing at the time.
In the typical Klay play, we also have a guy coming up slipping the screen (not Klay) and usually gets ignored. I have to imagine this is some sort of conditioning to keep the defense guessing and when pressure situations come up and they see the same action they're just a split second late too recognize it... perhaps taking one extra half-step in the wrong direction.
Also, kind of funny how Patty was mic'd up about helping Blake on the slip earlier in the game... and they get beat on a slip in crunch time.
D. Lee: "Check out that circus shot high layup Steph just made!”
Dre: "Man, it arced like an ice cream cone."
Poole: "Ice cream, mmm... I'd eat that right up!"
And of course JVG spent the entire time out decrying the Nets “not knowing personnel” because “Klay always skips the screen”… sigh. Why do I let them keep triggering me. It’s like I’m forgetting personnel…
when getting in position to 'set' a screen the screeners defender is often presuming the need to switch. By 'slipping' the screen the ball handlers defender sees he does not need to leave his man since the screen is not blocking his path....thus two defenders end up on one player even if for a split moment....all that is needed for the likes of Curry/Klay
It's super helpful to have the old clips to review to set up the current breakdown. Sets the context and explains a lot. Still, having diligently listened to the rationale as to why the Warriors only break out the 1-2 high pnr occasionally so as to maintain surprise, I'm not quite persuaded. It seems like it could be effective much more often, particularly against vulnerable defenses. Like maybe not against Paul George and Kawhi, but if it's Patty Mills and Kyrie offering help, it seems like we could have run the play ten times. Yes the play is less surprising, but it puts the two most lethal guys in great position to either generate a shot or move it on from there -- in this case to Wiggins or Porter as next options...maybe?
I don't know about "ten times" but more than once, sure. That said, breaking it out for the highest-leverage moment when we really needed a bucket was pretty sweet.
Now if we could just convince Coach Kerr that we should save our sole only solitary challenge of the entire game for a higher-leverage moment....... at least we won this one, and it got us an extra possession, so it wasn't the worst challenge he's called for.
I don't know about this rationale... for instance, if you can challenge a play that results in a bucket, shouldn't you just challenge it, and then be 2 points further away from having to deal with a higher-leverage moment later in the game? What if nothing challengeable happens later on, now you're just 2 extra points down?
I think coaches should prioritize using challenges when there’sa clear positive outcome. Hate winning a challenge only to lose the tip and not have gained much.
Even if the result of the challenge is a jump ball that we lose, it can still be a clear positive outcome if it means Steph/Loon/whoever isn't in foul trouble.
They were generating plenty of open looks earlier in the game for both Klay and Steph off different actions, too — they were just bricking all of them. This one looked better cos Klay swished it. :-)
Generally, I trust Kerr to find the right balance of play-calling to keep defenses on their toes and all five (or 15) Warrior players engaged, while maximizing offensive efficiency. We as fans tend to wish he would run more simple, two-man actions involving Steph; and we like to ride him for what often seems like a dogmatic devotion to motion offense and “mixing it up.” One unquantifiable benefit of the Kerr approach that we tend to overlook, tho (in addition to the value of keeping defenses guessing): how much more do the non-Splash players get after it on D when they feel fully engaged in the offense? The Warriors currently have the best defense in the NBA by a wide margin — indeed, one of the best defenses ever relative to league average. Do they kill it on D to the same degree if 3/5ths of the team is generally standing around watching two-man games on offense?
Who knows, but I do think Kerr’s egalitarian, varied approach to offense is at least as much about winning as it is about a dogmatic philosophical or aesthetic preference. And when the chips are down (as in the Klay play in question) he’s never been averse to simplifying matters with simple actions involving his two best players.
Agreed, but I'm sure Kerr would agree that a play that begins as a high 1-2 pnr can quickly involve others. We could have seen a pass to Wiggins here or in a different game situation other ball and player movement. The high pnr doesn't preclude all that other jazzy involved offense we love and makes us play D better.
Kerr has specifically said he runs his offense because when everyone touches the ball on O and has to be together on decisions, it activates everyone's defensive effort and togetherness. Very hard to prove this, but he believes it and it rings true to me psychologically
On the first grade team that I coach, when kids don't touch the ball, they definitely stop playing D and start looking at their feet. And we're all first graders at heart. So I'm with Kerr on this one.
Eh, from my memory, Steph certainly wasn't getting "plenty of open looks". I thought it was notable that he got almost none. Which is why I wasn't as bothered as some by the poor shooting performance. They were on top of him like [choose your favorite metaphor].
I did think both Steph and Klay were really hustling on defense, and while Steph in particular committed some unfortunate fouls, they were the type where he was trying too hard, which I can't really fault him for.
> Generally, I trust Kerr to find the right balance of play-calling to keep defenses on their toes and all five (or 15) Warrior players engaged,
I mean, nobody's perfect, but I agree Kerr does a really good job here.
Maybe not Steph so much, but Klay badly bricked a bunch of looks that IIRC were of similar quality to the game-sealer.
We weren’t able to free up Steph on the last play, either.
Saw one replay of the Kyrie foul on Klay where his left hand is gently tugging on Klay's jersey right before Klay trips. Clearly a foul - glad Kyrie admitted it after the game. Also I enjoyed watching Kyrie greet several Dubs players after the game - showed a lot of class there, even if he's a villain in these parts. Of course, maybe they were just telling him how easy the vaccination process is.....
maybe he was trying to breathe on them
Kyrie had already gotten away with his patented left arm shiver twice in the quarter against unsuspecting Kuminga and also later Steph at midcoast. Kyrie got the call both times, but Klay's strategic trip and fall turned the tables on the Nets.
That wasn't a Bengal tiger coat. I have it on good authority that outfit was actually made from humanely farmed bumblebees.
As long as they were humanely raised!
Agree! We sit above warriors bench and were laughing at Andre’s giant bumblebee outfit.
About Mark (sp) Jackson and that Van Gundy guy...My feed came through with no audio so when I saw who the TV guys were, I just laughed.
Definitely the worst thing about that game. Why does anyone keep paying those idiots.